4.8 Article

Comparative Toxicogenomics Database: a knowledgebase and discovery tool for chemical-gene-disease networks

期刊

NUCLEIC ACIDS RESEARCH
卷 37, 期 -, 页码 D786-D792

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkn580

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences [ES014065]
  2. National Institutes of Health [RR016463]
  3. NATIONAL CENTER FOR RESEARCH RESOURCES [P20RR016463] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  4. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES [R01ES014065] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Comparative Toxicogenomics Database (CTD) is a curated database that promotes understanding about the effects of environmental chemicals on human health. Biocurators at CTD manually curate chemical-gene interactions, chemical-disease relationships and gene-disease relationships from the literature. This strategy allows data to be integrated to construct chemical-gene-disease networks. CTD is unique in numerous respects: curation focuses on environmental chemicals; interactions are manually curated; interactions are constructed using controlled vocabularies and hierarchies; additional gene attributes (such as Gene Ontology, taxonomy and KEGG pathways) are integrated; data can be viewed from the perspective of a chemical, gene or disease; results and batch queries can be down-loaded and saved; and most importantly, CTD acts as both a knowledgebase (by reporting data) and a discovery tool (by generating novel inferences). Over 116 000 interactions between 3900 chemicals and 13 300 genes have been curated from 270 species, and 5900 gene-disease and 2500 chemical-disease direct relationships have been captured. By integrating these data, 350 000 gene disease relationships and 77 000 chemical-disease relationships can be inferred. This wealth of chemical-gene-disease information yields testable hypotheses for understanding the effects of environmental chemicals on human health. CTD is freely available at http://ctd.mdibl.org.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据