4.8 Article

Standards recommendations for the Earth BioGenome Project

Publisher

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2115639118

Keywords

Earth BioGenome Project; genomics; ethics; genome assembly

Funding

  1. Intramural Research Program of the National Library of Medicine
  2. Swedish Research Council
  3. Global Genome Initiative of the National Museum of Natural History
  4. Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI)
  5. Wellcome Grant [WT108749/Z/15/Z]
  6. European Molecular Biology Laboratory
  7. National Science Foundation [1943371]
  8. US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service
  9. Smithsonian Institution
  10. Direct For Biological Sciences
  11. Div Of Biological Infrastructure [1943371] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The Earth BioGenome Project (EBP) is a global international initiative that requires agreement and coordination on standards. To ensure rapid progress towards its goals, EBP has established five technical standards committees and made the current versions of the standards documents available on its website.
A global international initiative, such as the Earth BioGenome Project (EBP), requires both agreement and coordination on standards to ensure that the collective effort generates rapid progress toward its goals. To this end, the EBP initiated five technical standards committees comprising volunteer members from the global genomics scientific community: Sample Collection and Processing, Sequencing and Assembly, Annotation, Analysis, and IT and Informatics. The current versions of the resulting standards documents are available on the EBP website, with the recognition that opportunities, technologies, and challenges may improve or change in the future, requiring flexibility for the EBP to meet its goals. Here, we describe some highlights from the proposed standards, and areas where additional challenges will need to be met.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available