Search

Nucleotide and protein sequences stored in public databases are the cornerstone of many bioinformatics analyses. The records containing these sequences are prone to a wide range of errors, including incorrect functional annotation, sequence contamination and taxonomic misclassification. One source of information that can help to detect errors are the strong interdependency between records. Novel sequences in one database draw their annotations from existing records, may generate new records in multiple other locations and will have varying degrees of similarity with existing records across a range of attributes. A network perspective of these relationships between sequence records, within and across databases, offers new opportunities to detect-or even correct-erroneous entries and more broadly to make inferences about record quality. Here, we describe this novel perspective of sequence database records as a rich network, which we call the sequence database network, and illustrate the opportunities this perspective offers for quantification of database quality and detection of spurious entries. We provide an overview of the relevant databases and describe how the interdependencies between sequence records across these databases can be exploited by network analyses. We review the process of sequence annotation and provide a classification of sources of error, highlighting propagation as a major source. We illustrate the value of a network perspective through three case studies that use network analysis to detect errors, and explore the quality and quantity of critical relationships that would inform such network analyses. This systematic description of a network perspective of sequence database records provides a novel direction to combat the proliferation of errors within these critical bioinformatics resources., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Haplotype phasing is a critical step for many genetic applications but incorrect estimates of phase can negatively impact downstream analyses. One proposed strategy to improve phasing accuracy is to combine multiple independent phasing estimates to overcome the limitations of any individual estimate. However, such a strategy is yet to be thoroughly explored. This study provides a comprehensive evaluation of consensus strategies for haplotype phasing. We explore the performance of different consensus paradigms, and the effect of specific constituent tools, across several datasets with different characteristics and their impact on the downstream task of genotype imputation. Based on the outputs of existing phasing tools, we explore two different strategies to construct haplotype consensus estimators: voting across outputs from multiple phasing tools and multiple outputs of a single non-deterministic tool. We find that the consensus approach from multiple tools reduces SE by an average of 10% compared to any constituent tool when applied to European populations and has the highest accuracy regardless of population ethnicity, sample size, variant density or variant frequency. Furthermore, the consensus estimator improves the accuracy of the downstream task of genotype imputation carried out by the widely used Minimac3, pbwt and BEAGLE5 tools. Our results provide guidance on how to produce the most accurate phasing estimates and the trade-offs that a consensus approach may have. Our implementation of consensus haplotype phasing, consHap, is available freely at https://github.com/ziadbkh/consHap. Supplementary information: Supplementary data are available at Briefings in Bioinformatics online., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

We investigate and analyse the data quality of nucleotide sequence databases with the objective of automatic detection of data anomalies and suspicious records. Specifically, we demonstrate that the published literature associated with each data record can be used to automatically evaluate its quality, by cross-checking the consistency of the key content of the database record with the referenced publications. Focusing on GenBank, we describe a set of quality indicators based on the relevance paradigm of information retrieval (IR). Then, we use these quality indicators to train an anomaly detection algorithm to classify records as "confident" or "suspicious". Our experiments on the PubMed Central collection show assessing the coherence between the literature and database records, through our algorithms, is an effective mechanism for assisting curators to perform data cleansing. Although fewer than 0.25% of the records in our data set are known to be faulty, we would expect that there are many more in GenBank that have not yet been identified. By automated comparison with literature they can be identified with a precision of up to 10% and a recall of up to 30%, while strongly outperforming several baselines. While these results leave substantial room for improvement, they reflect both the very imbalanced nature of the data, and the limited explicitly labelled data that is available. Overall, the obtained results show promise for the development of a new kind of approach to detecting low-quality and suspicious sequence records based on literature analysis and consistency. From a practical point of view, this will greatly help curators in identifying inconsistent records in large-scale sequence databases by highlighting records that are likely to be inconsistent with the literature., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

GenBank, the EMBL European Nucleotide Archive and the DNA DataBank of Japan, known collectively as the International Nucleotide Sequence Database Collaboration or INSDC, are the three most significant nucleotide sequence databases. Their records are derived from laboratory work undertaken by different individuals, by different teams, with a range of technologies and assumptions and over a period of decades. As a consequence, they contain a great many duplicates, redundancies and inconsistencies, but neither the prevalence nor the characteristics of various types of duplicates have been rigorously assessed. Existing duplicate detection methods in bioinformatics only address specific duplicate types, with inconsistent assumptions; and the impact of duplicates in bioinformatics databases has not been carefully assessed, making it difficult to judge the value of such methods. Our goal is to assess the scale, kinds and impact of duplicates in bioinformatics databases, through a retrospective analysis of merged groups in INSDC databases. Our outcomes are threefold: (1) We analyse a benchmark dataset consisting of duplicates manually identified in INSDC-a dataset of 67 888 merged groups with 111 823 duplicate pairs across 21 organisms from INSDC databases - in terms of the prevalence, types and impacts of duplicates. (2) We categorize duplicates at both sequence and annotation level, with supporting quantitative statistics, showing that different organisms have different prevalence of distinct kinds of duplicate. (3) We show that the presence of duplicates has practical impact via a simple case study on duplicates, in terms of GC content and melting temperature. We demonstrate that duplicates not only introduce redundancy, but can lead to inconsistent results for certain tasks. Our findings lead to a better understanding of the problem of duplication in biological databases.Database URL: the merged records are available at https://cloudstor.aarnet.edu.au/plus/index.php/s/Xef2fvsebBEAv9w., (© The Author(s) 2017. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Bioinformatics sequence databases such as Genbank or UniProt contain hundreds of millions of records of genomic data. These records are derived from direct submissions from individual laboratories, as well as from bulk submissions from large-scale sequencing centres; their diversity and scale means that they suffer from a range of data quality issues including errors, discrepancies, redundancies, ambiguities, incompleteness and inconsistencies with the published literature. In this work, we seek to investigate and analyze the data quality of sequence databases from the perspective of a curator, who must detect anomalous and suspicious records. Specifically, we emphasize the detection of inconsistent records with respect to the literature. Focusing on GenBank, we propose a set of 24 quality indicators, which are based on treating a record as a query into the published literature, and then use query quality predictors. We then carry out an analysis that shows that the proposed quality indicators and the quality of the records have a mutual relationship, in which one depends on the other. We propose to represent record-literature consistency as a vector of these quality indicators. By reducing the dimensionality of this representation for visualization purposes using principal component analysis, we show that records which have been reported as inconsistent with the literature fall roughly in the same area, and therefore share similar characteristics. By manually analyzing records not previously known to be erroneous that fall in the same area than records know to be inconsistent, we show that one record out of four is inconsistent with respect to the literature. This high density of inconsistent record opens the way towards the development of automatic methods for the detection of faulty records. We conclude that literature inconsistency is a meaningful strategy for identifying suspicious records., Database Url: https://github.com/rbouadjenek/DQBioinformatics., (© The Author(s) 2017. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Motivation: First identified as an issue in 1996, duplication in biological databases introduces redundancy and even leads to inconsistency when contradictory information appears. The amount of data makes purely manual de-duplication impractical, and existing automatic systems cannot detect duplicates as precisely as can experts. Supervised learning has the potential to address such problems by building automatic systems that learn from expert curation to detect duplicates precisely and efficiently. While machine learning is a mature approach in other duplicate detection contexts, it has seen only preliminary application in genomic sequence databases., Results: We developed and evaluated a supervised duplicate detection method based on an expert curated dataset of duplicates, containing over one million pairs across five organisms derived from genomic sequence databases. We selected 22 features to represent distinct attributes of the database records, and developed a binary model and a multi-class model. Both models achieve promising performance; under cross-validation, the binary model had over 90% accuracy in each of the five organisms, while the multi-class model maintains high accuracy and is more robust in generalisation. We performed an ablation study to quantify the impact of different sequence record features, finding that features derived from meta-data, sequence identity, and alignment quality impact performance most strongly. The study demonstrates machine learning can be an effective additional tool for de-duplication of genomic sequence databases. All Data are available as described in the supplementary material.