Standards for reporting bioscience data: a forward look.

Groups representing a number of domains in the life sciences have been developing specifications and resources for the description and transmission of data, including those produced by (high-throughput) omics technologies. Although these developments are individually valuable, there is now a need for coordination to avoid the problem of a multiplicity of competing candidate standards. Three ongoing collaborative projects (FuGE, OBI and MIBBI) offer the promise of support for truly integrated, cross-domain informatics solutions. This article briefly summarizes the status quo with respect to biological and biomedical data standards, and offers an assessment of coming developments.

[1]  John Quackenbush,et al.  Data standards: a call to action. , 2006, Omics : a journal of integrative biology.

[2]  Lyle D Burgoon,et al.  The need for standards, not guidelines, in biological data reporting and sharing , 2006, Nature Biotechnology.

[3]  Keith T Taylor.  The status of electronic laboratory notebooks for chemistry and biology. , 2006, Current opinion in drug discovery & development.

[4]  Adam Rauch,et al.  Computational Proteomics Analysis System (CPAS): an extensible, open-source analytic system for evaluating and publishing proteomic data and high throughput biological experiments. , 2006, Journal of proteome research.

[5]  Rolf Apweiler,et al.  The Proteomics Identifications Database (PRIDE) and the ProteomExchange Consortium: making proteomics data accessible , 2006, Expert review of proteomics.

[6]  Lennart Martens,et al.  PRIDE: a public repository of protein and peptide identifications for the proteomics community , 2005, Nucleic Acids Res..

[7]  Nigel W. Hardy,et al.  MeMo: a hybrid SQL/XML approach to metabolomic data management for functional genomics , 2006, BMC Bioinformatics.

[8]  Ron Edgar,et al.  NCBI GEO standards and services for microarray data , 2006, Nature Biotechnology.

[9]  Susanna-Assunta Sansone,et al.  A Special Issue on Data Standards , 2006 .

[10]  P. Bossuyt,et al.  The quality of diagnostic accuracy studies since the STARD statement , 2006, Neurology.

[11]  Andrew R Jones,et al.  A strategy capitalizing on synergies: the Reporting Structure for Biological Investigation (RSBI) working group. , 2006, Omics : a journal of integrative biology.

[12]  Stephen P. Gardner.  Ontologies in drug discovery. , 2005, Drug discovery today. Technologies.

[13]  Catherine A Ball,et al.  Are we stuck in the standards? , 2006, Nature Biotechnology.

[14]  D. Moher,et al.  Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review , 2006, The Medical journal of Australia.

[15]  Helen Parkinson,et al.  ArrayExpress service for reviewers/editors of DNA microarray papers , 2006, Nature Biotechnology.

[16]  Jason E. Stewart,et al.  Minimum information about a microarray experiment (MIAME)—toward standards for microarray data , 2001, Nature Genetics.

[17]  Eugene Kolker,et al.  Experimental standards for high-throughput proteomics. , 2006, Omics : a journal of integrative biology.

[18]  MJH Kenter,et al.  Establishing risk of human experimentation with drugs: lessons from TGN1412 , 2006, The Lancet.