Difference between revisions of "The Monarch Initiative"

Revision as of 21:51, 2 October 2017

This is Nicole Kalcic's and Dina Bashour's Week 5 assignment.

To begin, we found our database by browsing the information via Descriptions of new online databases in the 2017 NAR Database issue. After settling on The Monarch Initiative, we split up the questions below. Nicole Kalcic completed the first and second bolded sections. Dina Bashour completed the second and fourth bolded sections. The finished assignment was checked by both of us to insure there were no mistakes in our own sections or the other person's sections.

• General information about the database
  1. Link to the database: https://monarchinitiative.org
  2. The database focuses on human disease related genotypes/phenotypes. (https://monarchinitiative.org/page/about)
     1. The database uses model organisms for phenotype comparison within/across species. (https://monarchinitiative.org)
     2. The information on Monarch is considered a secondary source because it is curated from established “databases, spreadsheets, delimited text files, XML, JSON, and Web APIs”. This work is done personally by the staffed individuals at the database’s contributing institutions, which are listed in question number three. (https://monarchinitiative.org/page/about)
  3. The Monarch Initiative is maintained by several institutions, including Oregon Health & Science University, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, The Jackson Laboratory, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Queen Mary University of London, Garvan Institute, Renaissance Computing Institute - University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and University of Pittsburgh. More information about the contributing individuals at each institution can be found by clicking on the hyperlink. (https://monarchinitiative.org/page/team)
  4. The institutions found funding for the database through a National Institutes of Health Office of the Director Grant, as well as through the National Institutes of Health Undiagnosed Diseases Program. (https://monarchinitiative.org/page/team) (https://www.genome.gov/27544402/the-undiagnosed-diseases-program/)
• Scientific quality of the database

1. Does the content appear to completely cover its content domain?
   • Yes the content appears to completely cover its content domain. The database is composed of 5 records, overview, diseases, phenotypes, models, and genes, with each containing a field of information associated with their specific record.
2. What claims do the database owners make about coverage in the corresponding paper?
3. There are 7 species in the database: human, mouse, worm, fly, zebrafish, dog, and cow.
   • The content of this database is useful in that it shows diseases described with phenotypes, gene variations associated with certain diseases, phenotype comparisons that suggest models, and models that suggest candidate genes. Each category of information has an interactive graph used to display the information in a concise and easily readable manner.
   • The information can be used by the scientific community and the content is timely. The Monarch Initiative integrates the biological information using semantics, and presents it in a novel way, leveraging phenotypes to bridge the knowledge gap. It allows for the phenotypic comparison both within and across species, hopefully aiding in the improvement of biomedical research.
   • Is the content covered by other databases already?
   • There are other databases that provide cross species examinations but not any that contain the specific species used in this database. Databases like WormBase and 4DXpress both provide a cross-species comparison but The Monarch Initiative presents the information in a very clear and effective way with the use of the interactive graphs while these other databases do not. The other databases also either do not compare the same information as the Monarch Initiative or they allow for comparisons using blast or by inputting your own DNA sequences.
   • The Monarch Initiative first went online on July 10, 2015.
   • The database is updated roughly once a year, offering the opportunity to provide feedback or submit questions, suggestions, problems, or concerns to the Monarch team.
   • The most recent update was in September of 2017, updating the data both on the website and on their app.

• General utility of the database to the scientific community
  1. Each page of information contains a Uniform Resource Identifier link. The data sources used for URIs can be found at https://monarchinitiative.org/about/sources. There are currently thirty sources integrated into the database.
  2. It is generally convenient to browse the data. As stated, if you search “Parkinson’s”, a single query will retrieve all data from the system that is considered relevant. However, when reading “The Monarch Flow Data”, many of the links describing the process were broken. This was not a huge issue, as I was able to find the described pages on my own, but it could easily be fixed so that the user has a more immediate trust in the database. (https://monarchinitiative.org/page/about)
  3. Is it convenient to download the data?
     • In what file formats are the data provided?
     • Are they standard or non-standard formats?
  4. Evaluate the “user-friendliness” of the database: can a naive user quickly navigate the website and gather useful information?
     • Is the website well-organized?
     • Does it have a help section or tutorial?
     • Are the search options sensible?
     • Run a sample query. Do the results make sense?
  5. There are no restrictions on access to this database. The bottom of their webpage states that it is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License, except where forbidden by the original sources. (https://monarchinitiative.org/page/about)
• Summary judgment
  1. Would you direct a colleague unfamiliar with the field to use it?
  2. Is this a professional or hobby database?

Acknowledgements

• Nicole Kalcic and Dina Bashour communicated via text and met in person to complete the different requirements of this assignment.
• While we worked with the people noted above, this individual journal entry was completed by us and not copied from another source.

Nicolekalcic (talk) 14:22, 2 October 2017 (PDT)

References

• LMU BioDB 2017. (2017). Week 5. Retrieved October 2, 2017, from https://xmlpipedb.cs.lmu.edu/biodb/fall2017/index.php/Week_5
• https://academic.oup.com/nar/article/45/D1/D1/2770636/The-24th-annual-Nucleic-Acids-Research-database
• https://monarchinitiative.org
• https://www.genome.gov/27544402/the-undiagnosed-diseases-program/