Standards for reporting bioscience data: a forward look

Drug Discovery Today

Volumn 12, Issue 13-14, 2007, Pages 527-533

  Taylor, Chris F ^a  

^a EUROPEAN BIOINFORMATICS INSTITUTE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

GENE PRODUCT; TUMOR MARKER;

ANALYTICAL EQUIPMENT; BIOASSAY; BIOINFORMATICS; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; BIOMEDICINE; CELL TYPE; COMPUTER PROGRAM; COST; DRUG INDUSTRY; EXPERIMENTATION; FLOW CYTOMETRY; GEL ELECTROPHORESIS; GENE; GENE EXPRESSION PROFILING; GENOMICS; HIGH THROUGHPUT SCREENING; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MASS SPECTROMETRY; METABOLOMICS; MOLECULAR INTERACTION; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SPECTROSCOPY; NUTRIGENOMICS; PHENOTYPE; PROTEIN MODIFICATION; PROTEOMICS; REVIEW; RNA INTERFERENCE; STANDARD; SYSTEMS BIOLOGY; TOXICOLOGY; TRANSCRIPTOMICS;

BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES; DOCUMENTATION; INFORMATICS; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INFORMATION STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL; QUALITY CONTROL; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 34447265544     PISSN: 13596446     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.drudis.2007.05.006     Document Type: Review

References (20)

1. Anon. Under the MIAME sun. Nat. Methods 3 (2006) 415
2. Brooksbank C., and Quackenbush J. Data standards: A call to action. Omics 10 (2006) 94-99
3. Burgoon L. The need for standards, not guidelines, in biological data reporting and sharing. Nat. Biotechnol. 24 (2006) 1369-1373
4. Edgar R., and Barrett T. NCBI GEO standards and services for microarray data. Nat. Biotechnol. 24 (2006) 1471-1472
5. Kenter M.J., and Cohen A.F. Establishing risk of human experimentation with drugs: lessons from TGN1412. Lancet 368 (2006) 1387-1391
6. Hogan J.M., et al. Experimental standards for high-throughput proteomics. Omics 10 (2006) 152-157
7. Plint A.C., et al. Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomized controlled trials? A systematic review. Med. J. Austr. 185 (2006) 263-267
8. Smidt N., et al. The quality of diagnostic accuracy studies since the STARD statement - Has it improved?. Neurology 67 (2006) 792-797
9. Brazma A., and Parkinson H. ArrayExpress service for reviewers/editors of DNA microarray papers. Nat. Biotechnol. 24 (2006) 1321-1322
10. Brazma A., et al. Minimum information about a microarray experiment (MIAME) - toward standards for microarray data. Nat. Genet. 29 (2001) 365-371
11. Jones P., et al. PRIDE: a public repository of protein and peptide identifications for the proteomics community. Nucleic Acids Res. 34 Database issue (2006) D659-D663
12. Hermjakob H., and Apweiler R. The Proteomics Identifications Database (PRIDE) and the ProteomExchange Consortium: making proteomics data accessible. Expert Rev. Proteom. 3 (2006) 1-3
13. Spasić I., et al. MeMo: a hybrid SQL/XML approach to metabolomic data management for functional genomics. BMC Bioinform. 7 (2006) 281
14. Gardner S.P. Ontologies in drug discovery. Drug Discov. Today: Technol. 2 (2005) 235-240
15. Ball C.A. Are we stuck in the standards?. Nat. Biotechnol. 24 (2006) 1374-1376
16. Field D., and Sansone S.-A. A special issue on data standards. Omics 10 (2006) 84-93
17. Sansone S.-A., et al. A Strategy Capitalizing on Synergies: The Reporting Structure for Biological Investigation (RSBI) Working Group. Omics 10 (2006) 164-171
18. Rauch A., et al. Computational proteomics analysis system (CPAS): An extensible: open-source analytic system for evaluating and publishing proteomic data and high throughput biological experiments. J. Proteome Res. 5 (2006) 112-121
19. Anon. Standard operating procedures. Nat. Biotechnol. 24 (2006) 1299
20. Taylor K.T. The status of electronic laboratory notebooks for chemistry and biology. Curr. Opin. Drug Discov. Dev. 9 (2006) 348-353