Landen Gozashti1,2, Russell Corbett-Detig3. 1. Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology and Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 02138, USA. lgozashti@g.harvard.edu. 2. Department of Biomolecular Engineering and Genomics Institute, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA, 95064, USA. lgozashti@g.harvard.edu. 3. Department of Biomolecular Engineering and Genomics Institute, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA, 95064, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has prompted one of the most extensive and expeditious genomic sequencing efforts in history. Each viral genome is accompanied by a set of metadata which supplies important information such as the geographic origin of the sample, age of the host, and the lab at which the sample was sequenced, and is integral to epidemiological efforts and public health direction. Here, we interrogate some shortcomings of metadata within the GISAID database to raise awareness of common errors and inconsistencies that may affect data-driven analyses and provide possible avenues for resolutions. RESULTS: Our analysis reveals a startling prevalence of spelling errors and inconsistent naming conventions, which together occur in an estimated ~ 9.8% and ~ 11.6% of "originating lab" and "submitting lab" GISAID metadata entries respectively. We also find numerous ambiguous entries which provide very little information about the actual source of a sample and could easily associate with multiple sources worldwide. Importantly, all of these issues can impair the ability and accuracy of association studies by deceptively causing a group of samples to identify with multiple sources when they truly all identify with one source, or vice versa.
OBJECTIVE: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has prompted one of the most extensive and expeditious genomic sequencing efforts in history. Each viral genome is accompanied by a set of metadata which supplies important information such as the geographic origin of the sample, age of the host, and the lab at which the sample was sequenced, and is integral to epidemiological efforts and public health direction. Here, we interrogate some shortcomings of metadata within the GISAID database to raise awareness of common errors and inconsistencies that may affect data-driven analyses and provide possible avenues for resolutions. RESULTS: Our analysis reveals a startling prevalence of spelling errors and inconsistent naming conventions, which together occur in an estimated ~ 9.8% and ~ 11.6% of "originating lab" and "submitting lab" GISAID metadata entries respectively. We also find numerous ambiguous entries which provide very little information about the actual source of a sample and could easily associate with multiple sources worldwide. Importantly, all of these issues can impair the ability and accuracy of association studies by deceptively causing a group of samples to identify with multiple sources when they truly all identify with one source, or vice versa.
Entities:
Keywords:
COVID-19; Data quality; Databases; Genomics; Metadata; SARS-CoV-2
Authors: Anna Bernasconi; Arif Canakoglu; Marco Masseroli; Stefano Ceri Journal: IEEE/ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinform Date: 2022-02-03 Impact factor: 3.710
Authors: Melanie Crystal Melendrez; Sophie Shaw; C Titus Brown; Brad W Goodner; Christopher Kvaal Journal: Front Microbiol Date: 2021-07-01 Impact factor: 5.640