4.6 Article

The BridgeDb framework: standardized access to gene, protein and metabolite identifier mapping services

期刊

BMC BIOINFORMATICS
卷 11, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2105-11-5

关键词

-

资金

  1. Google Summer of Code program
  2. transnational University Limburg (tUL)
  3. BioRange program of the Netherlands Bioinformatics Consortium (NBIC)
  4. Netherlands Consortium for Systems Biology (NCSB)
  5. National Institutes of Health [GM080223, HG003053]
  6. European Nutrigenomics Organization (NuGO)
  7. Dutch Scientific Organisation
  8. Direct For Biological Sciences
  9. Div Of Biological Infrastructure [0746303] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Many complementary solutions are available for the identifier mapping problem. This creates an opportunity for bioinformatics tool developers. Tools can be made to flexibly support multiple mapping services or mapping services could be combined to get broader coverage. This approach requires an interface layer between tools and mapping services. Results: Here we present BridgeDb, a software framework for gene, protein and metabolite identifier mapping. This framework provides a standardized interface layer through which bioinformatics tools can be connected to different identifier mapping services. This approach makes it easier for tool developers to support identifier mapping. Mapping services can be combined or merged to support multi-omics experiments or to integrate custom microarray annotations. BridgeDb provides its own ready-to-go mapping services, both in webservice and local database forms. However, the framework is intended for customization and adaptation to any identifier mapping service. BridgeDb has already been integrated into several bioinformatics applications. Conclusion: By uncoupling bioinformatics tools from mapping services, BridgeDb improves capability and flexibility of those tools. All described software is open source and available at http://www.bridgedb.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

4.6
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