4.8 Article

The Comparative Toxicogenomics Database's 10th year anniversary: update 2015

期刊

NUCLEIC ACIDS RESEARCH
卷 43, 期 D1, 页码 D914-D920

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/nar/gku935

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) grant 'Comparative Toxicogenomics Database' [R01-ES014065]
  2. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) grant 'Generation of a centralized and integrated resource for exposure data' [RO1-ES019604]
  3. NIEHS [R01-ES014065, R01-ES019604]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ten years ago, the Comparative Toxicogenomics Database (CTD; http://ctdbase.org/) was developed out of a need to formalize, harmonize and centralize the information on numerous genes and proteins responding to environmental toxic agents across diverse species. CTD's initial approach was to facilitate comparisons of nucleotide and protein sequences of toxicologically significant genes by curating these sequences and electronically annotating them with chemical terms from their associated references. Since then, however, CTD has vastly expanded its scope to robustly represent a triad of chemical-gene, chemical-disease and gene-disease interactions that are manually curated from the scientific literature by professional biocurators using controlled vocabularies, ontologies and structured notation. Today, CTD includes 24 million toxicogenomic connections relating chemicals/drugs, genes/proteins, diseases, taxa, phenotypes, Gene Ontology annotations, pathways and interaction modules. In this 10th year anniversary update, we outline the evolution of CTD, including our increased data content, new 'Pathway View' visualization tool, enhanced curation practices, pilot chemical-phenotype results and impending exposure data set. The prototype database originally described in our first report has transformed into a sophisticated resource used actively today to help scientists develop and test hypotheses about the etiologies of environmentally influenced diseases.

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