1 / 91

Международная инфраструктура для коллекций культур Василенко А.Н., Озерская С.М

Международная инфраструктура для коллекций культур Василенко А.Н., Озерская С.М Всероссийская коллекция микроорганизмов ИБФМ РАН E-mail: vanvkm@gmail.com. Ступарь Олег Сергеевич к.б.н . E-mail: stupar@ibpm.pushchino.ru ВКМ ИБФМ РАН Московская обл. 142290 Пущино, Проспект Науки 5.

raleigh
Download Presentation

Международная инфраструктура для коллекций культур Василенко А.Н., Озерская С.М

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Международная инфраструктура для коллекций культур Василенко А.Н., Озерская С.М Всероссийская коллекция микроорганизмов ИБФМ РАН E-mail: vanvkm@gmail.com

  2. Ступарь Олег Сергеевич к.б.н. E-mail: stupar@ibpm.pushchino.ru ВКМ ИБФМ РАН Московская обл. 142290 Пущино, Проспект Науки 5

  3. Типовое описание поля RDS 1. Field's name 2. Short description of the content (one sentence) 3. Specification of the content 3.1. Detailed description of the content, difference from the other fields that may look similar 3.2. List of subfields and their descriptions 3.3. Specification of the coding for the field and subfields 3.4. The list of possible values (if short) or a reference to file with long list, or reference to thesaurus, or reference to ontology 3.5. Reference to a manual, which describes this field content 3.6. Reference to external standard used for this field 3.7. Samples of correct coding for this field.

  4. The examination shows four factors that cuts the scope of the fields in possible request system and make the values inconsistent: (1) collections have some difference in selection of the fields, (2) Also some differences in understanding of the same fields are apparent, (3) different content while the understanding presumably is the same, (4) different typing for the same content is used. Factors (1) and (2) are specified by the standard, factors (3) and (4) aren't regulated, they are more difficult to classify, but we can give some examples.

  5. Difference in typing (factor 4). Example: errors in a name

  6. Factor 3: Differences in content.Example: One strain of Aspergillus brasiliensis Varga et al. 2007 in four catalogues: Cultures: ATCC 9642 CBS 246.65 DSM 63263 VKM F-1119

  7. Results of comparison

  8. Results of comparison

  9. Results of comparison

  10. Results of comparison

  11. Results of comparison

  12. Results of comparison

  13. Results of comparison

  14. Results of comparison

  15. Типовое описание поля RDS 1. Field's name 2. Short description of the content (one sentence) 3. Specification of the content 3.1. Detailed description of the content, difference from the other fields that may look similar 3.2. List of subfields and their descriptions 3.3. Specification of the coding for the field and subfields 3.4. The list of possible values (if short) or a reference to file with long list, or reference to thesaurus, or reference to ontology 3.5. Reference to a manual, which describes this field content 3.6. Reference to external standard used for this field 3.7. Samples of correct coding for this field.

  16. Their URLs:

  17. Real fields names Geographic origin, History of deposit, Species, Accession number, Antagonism, Applications, Carbon source assimilation, Carbon source fermentation, Cell wall, Class, Clonal, Collected date, Collector, Collector number, Comments, Conditions for growth - Medium, Conditions for sporulation, Constructed by, Coordinate of Location, Country, Date of identification, Date of isolation, Date of isolation, Decomposes, Deposition date, Description of Location, Description of morphology, Deterioration abilites, Division, DNA-DNA relatedness, EditDate, EntryDate, Enzyme production, Family, Fatty acid profile, Filamentous Growth, Form of supply, G+C (Mol%)\GC, Genotype, Genus, Geographic origin, Growth in broth, Host, Identified by, Images, Infrasubspecific names, Isolate Number, Isolated by, Isolated from, Isolation method, Kingdom, light, Literature, MatingType, MaxMinTemperature, Metabolites, Misapplied names, Mutant, Mycoparasiitism, Name and taxonomy, National name, Numerical taxonomy, O2, Order, Organism type, Other collection numbers, Parents strain, Pathogenicity, pH, Phylum, Pigment, Plasmid, Polar lipid, Quinone, Race, Restrictions, Salt Tolerant, Sensitive to, Serotype, Serovar, Sexual state, Sole Sources of Nitrogen, Status, StorageMethods, Strip test, Synonyms, Temperature, Toxicity, Toxicity type, Toxicity value, Transformation, Veg. compatibility, Yeast physiological data

  18. The data standards compared: - MINE Bacterial - MINE Fungal - CABRI / OECD MDS+RDS+FDS - Darwin Core - ABCD - Straininfo

  19. MINE The Microbial Information Network Europe 1985 - 1993 Sponsored by the CEC, MINE was established to coordinate, harmonize and integrate data on microbial cultures held in collections of 9 EC countries: Belgium, Germany, France, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, U.K. In 1989 MINE consisted of 32 Culture Collections Database was planned separately in 9 national nodes. DEC VAX minicomputers (BASIS software) and microcomputers PC AT (ORACLE database). In 1989 there was on-line access to DSM, CMI, CBS, NCYC, LMG nodes via modem connection. Menu request system, search with AND/OR operators. Thesaurus files in BASIS aid in maintaining consistency during data entry. Integrated database was planned in DSM, and Responsible Committee was to make decisions on conflicting strain data.

More Related