A Proposal to Enhance Mentoring at SPEA IUPUI

Short talk presentation slide

Data from: The trouble with triplets in biodiversity informatics: a data-driven case against current identifier practices

The biodiversity informatics community has discussed aspirations and approaches for assigning globally unique identifiers (GUIDs) to biocollections for nearly a decade. During that time, and despite misgivings, the de facto standard identifier has become the “Darwin Core Triplet”, which is a concatenation of values for institution code, collection code, and catalog number associated with biocollections material. Our aim is not to rehash the challenging discussions regarding which GUID system in theory best supports the biodiversity informatics use case of discovering and linking digital data across the Internet, but how well we can link those data together at this moment, utilizing the current identifier schemes that have already been deployed. We gathered Darwin Core Triplets from a subset of VertNet records, along with vertebrate records from GenBank and the Barcode of Life Data System, in order to determine how Darwin Core Triplets are deployed “in the wild”. We asked if those triplets follow the recommended structure and whether they provide an easy and unambiguous means to track from specimen records to genetic sequence records. We show that Darwin Core Triplets are often riddled with semantic and syntactic errors when deployed and curated in practice, despite specifications about how to construct them. Our results strongly suggest that Darwin Core Triplets that have not been carefully curated are not currently serving a useful role for relinking data. We briefly consider needed next steps to overcome current limitations

The trouble with triplets in biodiversity informatics: a data-driven case against current identifier practices.

The biodiversity informatics community has discussed aspirations and approaches for assigning globally unique identifiers (GUIDs) to biocollections for nearly a decade. During that time, and despite misgivings, the de facto standard identifier has become the "Darwin Core Triplet", which is a concatenation of values for institution code, collection code, and catalog number associated with biocollections material. Our aim is not to rehash the challenging discussions regarding which GUID system in theory best supports the biodiversity informatics use case of discovering and linking digital data across the Internet, but how well we can link those data together at this moment, utilizing the current identifier schemes that have already been deployed. We gathered Darwin Core Triplets from a subset of VertNet records, along with vertebrate records from GenBank and the Barcode of Life Data System, in order to determine how Darwin Core Triplets are deployed "in the wild". We asked if those triplets follow the recommended structure and whether they provide an easy and unambiguous means to track from specimen records to genetic sequence records. We show that Darwin Core Triplets are often riddled with semantic and syntactic errors when deployed and curated in practice, despite specifications about how to construct them. Our results strongly suggest that Darwin Core Triplets that have not been carefully curated are not currently serving a useful role for relinking data. We briefly consider needed next steps to overcome current limitations

trouble_w_triples-master

A zip file containing the scripts used to analyze a large dataset of identifiers from different systems - VertNet, BOLD and Genbank. The identifiers are also provided

A schematic representation showing proportional numbers of Darwin Core Triplets – represented as different sized ellipses - across repositories and the overlap between them.

<p>The inset shows the overlap regions in more detail. The numbers associated with each repository and areas of overlap are for all types of matches, not just triplet-to-triplet matches. The percentages represent the number of matches between two (or three repositories) divided by shared triples in the smallest of the two (or three) polygons.</p

Summary of DwC Triplets per repository.

<p>A canonical DwC Triplet is a triplet that is complete and conforms to standard representation. A “Coerced” DwC Triplet is one that is either missing a part of the triplet (e.g., a collection code) or in a non-standard syntax.</p><p>Summary of DwC Triplets per repository.</p

Dual-reporter SERS-based biomolecular assay with reduced false-positive signals.

We present a sensitive and quantitative protein detection assay that can efficiently distinguish between specific and nonspecific target binding. Our technique combines dual affinity reagents with surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy (SERS) and chemometric analysis. We link one Raman reporter-tagged affinity reagent to gold nanoparticles and another to a gold film, such that protein-binding events create a "hot spot" with strong SERS spectra from both Raman reporter molecules. Any signal generated in this context is indicative of recognition by both affinity labels, whereas signals generated by nonspecific binding lack one or the other label, enabling us to efficiently distinguish true from false positives. We show that the number of hot spots per unit area of our substrate offers a quantitative measure of analyte concentration and demonstrate that this dual-label, SERS-linked aptasensor assay can sensitively and selectively detect human α-thrombin in 1% human serum with a limit of detection of 86 pM