Genome Research cityscape

Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Claustres, M.
Right arrow Articles by Cotton, R. G.H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Claustres, M.
Right arrow Articles by Cotton, R. G.H.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Vol. 12, Issue 5, 680-688, May 2002

COMMENTARY
Time for a Unified System of Mutation Description and Reporting: A Review of Locus-Specific Mutation Databases

Mireille Claustres,1,2 Ourania Horaitis,1 Marijana Vanevski,1 and Richard G.H. Cotton1,3,4

1 Genomic Disorders Research Centre, St. Vincent's Hospital Melbourne, Fitzroy VIC 3065, Australia, 2 Laboratoire de Génétique Moléculaire, Institut Universitaire de Recherche Clinique, 34093 Montpellier Cedex 5, France, 3 The University of Melbourne, Department of Medicine, Melbourne VIC 3010, Australia

Mutation databases of human genes are assuming an increasing importance in all areas of health care. In addition, more and more experts in the mutations and diseases of particular genes are curating published and unpublished mutations in locus-specific databases (LSDB). These databases contain such extensive information that they have become known as knowledge bases. We analyzed these databases and their content between June 21, 2001, and July 18, 2001. We were able to access 94 independent websites devoted to the documentation of mutation containing 262 LSDBs for study. We analyzed one LSDB from each of these websites (i.e., 94 LSDBs) for the presence or absence of 80 content criteria, as generally each gene in a multigene website documented the same criteria. No criterion studied gave unanimous agreement in every database. Twenty-two genes were represented by more than one LSDB. The number of mutations recorded, excluding p53, was 23,822 with 1518 polymorphisms. Fifty-four percent of the LSDBs studied were easy to use and 11% hard to follow; 73% of the databases were displayed through HTML. Three databases were found that were given a high score for ease of use and wealth of content. Thus, the study provided a strong case for uniformity of data to make the content maximally useful. In this direction, a hypothetical content for an ideal LSDB was derived. We also derived a community structure that would enhance the chances of mutation capture rather than being left unpublished in a patient's report. We hope the interested community and granting bodies will assist in achieving the vision of a public system that collects and displays all variants discovered.

[Supplemental material available online at http://www.genome.org]

4 Corresponding author.

12:680-688 ©2002 by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press  ISSN 1088-9051/02 $5.00
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J. Med. Genet.Home page
R A George, T D Smith, S Callaghan, L Hardman, C Pierides, O Horaitis, M A Wouters, and R G H Cotton
General mutation databases: analysis and review
J. Med. Genet., February 1, 2008; 45(2): 65 - 70.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Med. Genet.Home page
R. G H Cotton, K. Phillips, and O. Horaitis
A survey of locus-specific database curation
J. Med. Genet., April 1, 2007; 44(4): e72 - e72.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Nucleic Acids ResHome page
S. van Baal, P. Kaimakis, M. Phommarinh, D. Koumbi, H. Cuppens, F. Riccardino, M. Macek Jr, C. R. Scriver, and G. P. Patrinos
FINDbase: a relational database recording frequencies of genetic defects leading to inherited disorders worldwide
Nucleic Acids Res., January 12, 2007; 35(suppl_1): D690 - D695.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Brief BioinformHome page
E. Merelli, G. Armano, N. Cannata, F. Corradini, M. d'Inverno, A. Doms, P. Lord, A. Martin, L. Milanesi, S. Moller, et al.
Agents in bioinformatics, computational and systems biology
Brief Bioinform, January 1, 2007; 8(1): 45 - 59.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Cancer Res.Home page
T. Soussi, B. Asselain, D. Hamroun, S. Kato, C. Ishioka, M. Claustres, and C. Beroud
Meta-analysis of the p53 Mutation Database for Mutant p53 Biological Activity Reveals a Methodologic Bias in Mutation Detection
Clin. Cancer Res., January 1, 2006; 12(1): 62 - 69.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 BioinformaticsHome page
A. Cavallo and A. C. R. Martin
Mapping SNPs to protein sequence and structure data
Bioinformatics, April 15, 2005; 21(8): 1443 - 1450.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 BioinformaticsHome page
A. Kahraman, A. Avramov, L. G. Nashev, D. Popov, R. Ternes, H.-D. Pohlenz, and B. Weiss
PhenomicDB: a multi-species genotype/phenotype database for comparative phenomics
Bioinformatics, February 1, 2005; 21(3): 418 - 420.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
Genes Dev. Learn. Mem.
Protein Science RNA Genome Res.