DatabaseBioinformaticsPeer-reviewed journal article
Benchmarks for Measurement of Duplicate Detection Methods in Nucleotide Databases
Abstract
Duplication of information in databases is a major data quality challenge. The presence of duplicates, implying either redundancy or inconsistency, can have a range of impacts on the quality of analyses that use the data. To provide a sound basis for research on this issue in databases of nucleotide sequences, we have developed new, large-scale validated collections of duplicates, which can be used to test the effectiveness of duplicate detection methods. Previous collections were either designed primarily to test efficiency, or contained only a limited number of duplicates of limited kinds. To date, duplicate detection methods have been evaluated on separate, inconsistent benchmarks, leading to results that cannot be compared and, due to limitations of the benchmarks, of questionable generality.\n\nIn this study we present three nucleotide sequence database benchmarks, based on information drawn from a range of resources, including information derived from mapping to Swiss-Prot and TrEMBL. Each benchmark has distinct characteristics. We quantify these characteristics and argue for their complementary value in evaluation. The benchmarks collectively contain a vast number of validated biological duplicates; the largest has nearly half a billion duplicate pairs (although this is probably only a tiny fraction of the total that is present). They are also the first benchmarks targeting the primary nucleotide databases. The records include the 21 most heavily studied organisms in molecular biology research. Our quantitative analysis shows that duplicates in the different benchmarks, and in different organisms, have different characteristics. It is thus unreliable to evaluate duplicate detection methods against any single benchmark. For example, the benchmark derived from Swiss-Prot mappings identifies more diverse types of duplicates, showing the importance of expert curation, but is limited to coding sequences. Overall, these benchmarks form a resource that we believe will be of great value for development and evaluation of the duplicate detection methods that are required to help maintain these essential resources.\n\nAvailability: The benchmark data sets are available at https://bitbucket.org/biodbqual/benchmarks.
- organism: human
- organism: mouse
- organism: rat
- assay: whole-genome sequencing
- assay: whole-exome sequencing
- research focus: benchmarking
- research focus: variant calling
- research focus: variant effect prediction
- research focus: database / resource
- approach: benchmark study
- Citations
- 15
- FWCI
- 1.46
- Field percentile
- top 14%
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Duplicates, redundancies, and inconsistencies in the primary nucleotide databases: a descriptive study
Qingyu Chen, Justin Zobel, Karin M. Verspoor·DatabasePeer-reviewed·Nov 24, 2016
- Quality Matters: Biocuration Experts on the Impact of Duplication and Other Data Quality Issues in Biological Databases
Q. Chen, R. Britto, … K. Verspoor·bioRxiv·Oct 5, 2019
- Literature Consistency of Bioinformatics Sequence Databases is Effective for Assessing Record Quality
Mohamed Reda Bouadjenek, Karin M. Verspoor, Justin Zobel·DatabasePeer-reviewed·Jan 1, 2017
- Automated Detection of Records in Biological Sequence Databases that are Inconsistent with the Literature
Mohamed Reda Bouadjenek, Karin M. Verspoor, Justin Zobel·Journal of Biomedical InformaticsPeer-reviewed·Jun 15, 2017
- TrieDedup: A fast trie-based deduplication algorithm to handle ambiguous bases in high-throughput sequencing
Jianqiao Hu, Sai Luo, … Adam Yongxin Ye·BMC BioinformaticsPeer-reviewed·Apr 18, 2024
- Multi-Platform Assessment of DNA Sequencing Performance using Human and Bacterial Reference Genomes in the ABRF Next-Generation Sequencing Study
Jonathan Foox, Scott W. Tighe, … Christopher E. Mason·bioRxiv·Jul 23, 2020