Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Más filtros

Bases de datos
Tipo de estudio
Tipo del documento
Asunto de la revista
País de afiliación
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Nucleic Acids Res ; 46(D1): D1168-D1180, 2018 01 04.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29186578

RESUMEN

The Planteome project (http://www.planteome.org) provides a suite of reference and species-specific ontologies for plants and annotations to genes and phenotypes. Ontologies serve as common standards for semantic integration of a large and growing corpus of plant genomics, phenomics and genetics data. The reference ontologies include the Plant Ontology, Plant Trait Ontology and the Plant Experimental Conditions Ontology developed by the Planteome project, along with the Gene Ontology, Chemical Entities of Biological Interest, Phenotype and Attribute Ontology, and others. The project also provides access to species-specific Crop Ontologies developed by various plant breeding and research communities from around the world. We provide integrated data on plant traits, phenotypes, and gene function and expression from 95 plant taxa, annotated with reference ontology terms. The Planteome project is developing a plant gene annotation platform; Planteome Noctua, to facilitate community engagement. All the Planteome ontologies are publicly available and are maintained at the Planteome GitHub site (https://github.com/Planteome) for sharing, tracking revisions and new requests. The annotated data are freely accessible from the ontology browser (http://browser.planteome.org/amigo) and our data repository.


Asunto(s)
Bases de Datos Genéticas , Genoma de Planta , Plantas/genética , Productos Agrícolas/genética , Curaduría de Datos , Regulación de la Expresión Génica de las Plantas , Ontología de Genes , Anotación de Secuencia Molecular , Fenotipo , Programas Informáticos , Interfaz Usuario-Computador
2.
Syst Biol ; 67(1): 49-60, 2018 Jan 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29253296

RESUMEN

Scientists building the Tree of Life face an overwhelming challenge to categorize phenotypes (e.g., anatomy, physiology) from millions of living and fossil species. This biodiversity challenge far outstrips the capacities of trained scientific experts. Here we explore whether crowdsourcing can be used to collect matrix data on a large scale with the participation of nonexpert students, or "citizen scientists." Crowdsourcing, or data collection by nonexperts, frequently via the internet, has enabled scientists to tackle some large-scale data collection challenges too massive for individuals or scientific teams alone. The quality of work by nonexpert crowds is, however, often questioned and little data have been collected on how such crowds perform on complex tasks such as phylogenetic character coding. We studied a crowd of over 600 nonexperts and found that they could use images to identify anatomical similarity (hypotheses of homology) with an average accuracy of 82% compared with scores provided by experts in the field. This performance pattern held across the Tree of Life, from protists to vertebrates. We introduce a procedure that predicts the difficulty of each character and that can be used to assign harder characters to experts and easier characters to a nonexpert crowd for scoring. We test this procedure in a controlled experiment comparing crowd scores to those of experts and show that crowds can produce matrices with over 90% of cells scored correctly while reducing the number of cells to be scored by experts by 50%. Preparation time, including image collection and processing, for a crowdsourcing experiment is significant, and does not currently save time of scientific experts overall. However, if innovations in automation or robotics can reduce such effort, then large-scale implementation of our method could greatly increase the collective scientific knowledge of species phenotypes for phylogenetic tree building. For the field of crowdsourcing, we provide a rare study with ground truth, or an experimental control that many studies lack, and contribute new methods on how to coordinate the work of experts and nonexperts. We show that there are important instances in which crowd consensus is not a good proxy for correctness.


Asunto(s)
Clasificación/métodos , Colaboración de las Masas/normas , Filogenia , Animales , Fenotipo , Competencia Profesional , Reproducibilidad de los Resultados
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA