Dataset Information

The Glycan Structure Dictionary-a dictionary describing commonly used glycan structure terms.

ABSTRACT: Recent technological advances in glycobiology have resulted in a large influx of data and the publication of many papers describing discoveries in glycoscience. However, the terms used in describing glycan structural features are not standardized, making it difficult to harmonize data across biomolecular databases, hampering the harvesting of information across studies and hindering text mining and curation efforts. To address this shortcoming, the Glycan Structure Dictionary has been developed as a reference dictionary to provide a standardized list of widely used glycan terms that can help in the curation and mapping of glycan structures described in publications. Currently, the dictionary has 190 glycan structure terms with 297 synonyms linked to 3,332 publications. For a term to be included in the dictionary, it must be present in at least 2 peer-reviewed publications. Synonyms, annotations, and cross-references to GlyTouCan, GlycoMotif, and other relevant databases and resources are also provided when available. The purpose of this effort is to facilitate biocuration, assist in the development of text mining tools, improve the harmonization of search, and browse capabilities in glycoinformatics resources and help to map glycan structures to function and disease. It is also expected that authors will use these terms to describe glycan structures in their manuscripts over time. A mechanism is also provided for researchers to submit terms for potential incorporation. The dictionary is available at https://wiki.glygen.org/Glycan_structure_dictionary.

SUBMITTER: Vora J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10243773 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The Glycan Structure Dictionary-a dictionary describing commonly used glycan structure terms.

Vora Jeet J Navelkar Rahi R Vijay-Shanker K K Edwards Nathan N Martinez Karina K Ding Xiying X Wang Tianyi T Su Peng P Ross Karen K Lisacek Frederique F Hayes Catherine C Kahsay Robel R Ranzinger Rene R Tiemeyer Michael M Mazumder Raja R

Glycobiology 20230601 5

Recent technological advances in glycobiology have resulted in a large influx of data and the publication of many papers describing discoveries in glycoscience. However, the terms used in describing glycan structural features are not standardized, making it difficult to harmonize data across biomolecular databases, hampering the harvesting of information across studies and hindering text mining and curation efforts. To address this shortcoming, the Glycan Structure Dictionary has been developed ...[more]

PMID: 36799723

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSeveral validated scales have been developed to measure frailty, yet the direct relationship between these measures and their scores remains unknown. To bridge this gap, we created a crosswalk of the most commonly used frailty scales.MethodsWe used data from 7070 community-dwelling older adults who participated in National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS) Round 5 to construct a crosswalk among frailty scales. We operationalized the Study of Osteoporotic Fracture Index (SOF), FRAIL Scale, Frailty Phenotype, Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), Vulnerable Elder Survey-13 (VES-13), Tilburg Frailty Indictor (TFI), Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI), Edmonton Frailty Scale (EFS), and 40-item Frailty Index (FI). A crosswalk between FI and the frailty scales was created using the equipercentile linking method, a statistical procedure that produces equivalent scoring between scales according to percentile distributions. To demonstrate its validity, we determined the 4-year mortality risk across all scales for low-risk (equivalent to FI <0.20), moderate-risk (FI 0.20 to <0.40), and high-risk (FI ≥0.40) categories.ResultsUsing NHATS, the feasibility of calculating frailty scores was at least 90% for all nine scales, with the FI having the highest number of calculable scores. Participants considered frail on FI (cutpoint of 0.25) corresponded to the following scores on each frailty measure: SOF 1.3, FRAIL 1.7, Phenotype 1.7, CFS 5.3, VES-13 5.5, TFI 4.4, GFI 4.8, and EFS 5.8. Conversely, individuals considered frail according to the cutpoint of each frailty measure corresponded to the following FI scores: 0.37 for SOF, 0.40 for FRAIL, 0.42 for Phenotype, 0.21 for CFS, 0.16 for VES-13, 0.28 for TFI, 0.21 for GFI, and 0.37 for EFS. Across frailty scales, the 4-year mortality risks between the same categories were similar in magnitude.ConclusionOur results provide clinicians and researchers with a useful tool to directly compare and interpret frailty scores across scales.

Project description:BackgroundEcological communities tend to be spatially structured due to environmental gradients and/or spatially contagious processes such as growth, dispersion and species interactions. Data transformation followed by usage of algorithms such as Redundancy Analysis (RDA) is a fairly common approach in studies searching for spatial structure in ecological communities, despite recent suggestions advocating the use of Generalized Linear Models (GLMs). Here, we compared the performance of GLMs and RDA in describing spatial structure in ecological community composition data. We simulated realistic presence/absence data typical of many β-diversity studies. For model selection we used standard methods commonly used in most studies involving RDA and GLMs.MethodsWe simulated communities with known spatial structure, based on three real spatial community presence/absence datasets (one terrestrial, one marine and one freshwater). We used spatial eigenvectors as explanatory variables. We varied the number of non-zero coefficients of the spatial variables, and the spatial scales with which these coefficients were associated and then compared the performance of GLMs and RDA frameworks to correctly retrieve the spatial patterns contained in the simulated communities. We used two different methods for model selection, Forward Selection (FW) for RDA and the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) for GLMs. The performance of each method was assessed by scoring overall accuracy as the proportion of variables whose inclusion/exclusion status was correct, and by distinguishing which kind of error was observed for each method. We also assessed whether errors in variable selection could affect the interpretation of spatial structure.ResultsOverall GLM with AIC-based model selection (GLM/AIC) performed better than RDA/FW in selecting spatial explanatory variables, although under some simulations the methods performed similarly. In general, RDA/FW performed unpredictably, often retaining too many explanatory variables and selecting variables associated with incorrect spatial scales. The spatial scale of the pattern had a negligible effect on GLM/AIC performance but consistently affected RDA's error rates under almost all scenarios.ConclusionWe encourage the use of GLM/AIC for studies searching for spatial drivers of species presence/absence patterns, since this framework outperformed RDA/FW in situations most likely to be found in natural communities. It is likely that such recommendations might extend to other types of explanatory variables.

Dataset Information

The Glycan Structure Dictionary-a dictionary describing commonly used glycan structure terms.

Publications

The Glycan Structure Dictionary-a dictionary describing commonly used glycan structure terms.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets