Literature DB >> 12222822

Non-curated distributed databases for experimental data and models in neuroscience.

R C Cannon1, F W Howell, N H Goddard, E De Schutter.   

Abstract

Neuroscience is generating vast amounts of highly diverse data which is of potential interest to researchers beyond the laboratories in which it is collected. In particular, quantitative neuroanatomical data is relevant to a wide variety of areas, including studies of development, aging, pathology and in biophysically oriented computational modelling. Moreover, the relatively discrete and well-defined nature of the data make it an ideal application for developing systems designed to facilitate data archiving, sharing and reuse. At present, the only widely used forms of dissemination are figures and tables in published papers which suffer from inaccessibility and the loss of machine readability. They may also present only an averaged or otherwise selected subset of the available data. Numerous database projects are in progress to address these shortcomings. They employ a variety of architectures and philosophies, each with its own merits and disadvantages. One axis on which they may be distinguished is the degree of top-down control, or curation, involved in data entry. Here we consider one extreme of this scale in which there is no curation, minimal standardization and a wide degree of freedom in the form of records used to document data. Such a scheme has advantages in the ease of database creation and in the equitable assignment of perceived intellectual property by keeping the control of data in the hands of the experts who collected it. It does, however, require a more sophisticated infrastructure than conventional databases since the software must be capable of organizing diverse and differently documented data sets in an effective way. Several components of a software system to provide this infrastructure are now in place. Examples are presented, showing how these tools can be used to archive and publish neuronal morphology data, and how they can give an integrated view of data stored at many different sites.

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12222822

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Network        ISSN: 0954-898X            Impact factor:   1.273


  11 in total

1.  Linking investigators. A centralized linking facility for data sharing and coordination of samples in tissue banks.

Authors:  Neil R Smalheiser
Journal:  EMBO Rep       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 8.807

2.  NeuroSys: a semistructured laboratory database.

Authors:  Sandy Pittendrigh; Gwen Jacobs
Journal:  Neuroinformatics       Date:  2003

3.  Axiope tools for data management and data sharing.

Authors:  Nigel H Goddard; Robert C Cannon; Fred W Howell
Journal:  Neuroinformatics       Date:  2003

4.  From biophysics to behavior: Catacomb2 and the design of biologically-plausible models for spatial navigation.

Authors:  Robert C Cannon; Michael E Hasselmo; Randal A Koene
Journal:  Neuroinformatics       Date:  2003

5.  Fitting experimental data to models that use morphological data from public databases.

Authors:  W R Holmes; J Ambros-Ingerson; L M Grover
Journal:  J Comput Neurosci       Date:  2006-04-22       Impact factor: 1.621

6.  SenseLab: new developments in disseminating neuroscience information.

Authors:  Chiquito J Crasto; Luis N Marenco; Nian Liu; Thomas M Morse; Kei-Hoi Cheung; Peter C Lai; Gautam Bahl; Peter Masiar; Hugo Y K Lam; Ernest Lim; Huajin Chen; Prakash Nadkarni; Michele Migliore; Perry L Miller; Gordon M Shepherd
Journal:  Brief Bioinform       Date:  2007-05-17       Impact factor: 11.622

7.  L-Measure: a web-accessible tool for the analysis, comparison and search of digital reconstructions of neuronal morphologies.

Authors:  Ruggero Scorcioni; Sridevi Polavaram; Giorgio A Ascoli
Journal:  Nat Protoc       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 13.491

Review 8.  Computer modelling of epilepsy.

Authors:  William W Lytton
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurosci       Date:  2008-07-02       Impact factor: 34.870

Review 9.  MorphML: level 1 of the NeuroML standards for neuronal morphology data and model specification.

Authors:  Sharon Crook; Padraig Gleeson; Fred Howell; Joseph Svitak; R Angus Silver
Journal:  Neuroinformatics       Date:  2007

10.  Comparison of models for IP3 receptor kinetics using stochastic simulations.

Authors:  Katri Hituri; Marja-Leena Linne
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-04-10       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.