The e-ROSA project seeks to build a shared vision of a future sustainable e-infrastructure for research and education in agriculture in order to promote Open Science in this field and as such contribute to addressing related societal challenges. In order to achieve this goal, e-ROSA’s first objective is to bring together the relevant scientific communities and stakeholders and engage them in the process of coelaboration of an ambitious, practical roadmap that provides the basis for the design and implementation of such an e-infrastructure in the years to come.
This website highlights the results of a bibliometric analysis conducted at a global scale in order to identify key scientists and associated research performing organisations (e.g. public research institutes, universities, Research & Development departments of private companies) that work in the field of agricultural data sources and services. If you have any comment or feedback on the bibliometric study, please use the online form.
You can access and play with the graphs:
- Evolution of the number of publications between 2005 and 2015
- Map of most publishing countries between 2005 and 2015
- Network of country collaborations
- Network of institutional collaborations (+10 publications)
- Network of keywords relating to data - Link
Comparing gene annotation enrichment tools for functional modeling of agricultural microarray data
: The widespread availability of microarray technology has driven functional genomics to the forefront as scientists seek to draw meaningful biological conclusions from their microarray results. Gene annotation enrichment analysis is a functional analysis technique that has gained widespread attention and for which many tools have been developed. Unfortunately, most of these tools have limited support for agricultural species. Here, we evaluate and compare four publicly available computational tools (Onto-Express, EasyGO, GOstat, and DAVID) that support analysis of gene expression datasets in agricultural species. We use AgBase as the functional annotation reference for agricultural species. The selected tools were evaluated based on i) available features, usage and accessibility, ii) implemented statistical computational methods, and iii) annotation and enrichment performance analysis. Annotation was assessed using a randomly selected test gene annotation set and an experimental differentially expressed gene-set-both from chicken. The experimental set was also used to evaluate identification of enriched functional groups. Comparison of the tools shows that they produce different sets of annotations for the two datasets and different functional groups for the experimental dataset. While DAVID, GOstat and Onto-Express annotate comparable numbers of genes, DAVID provides by far the most annotations per gene. However, many of DAVID's annotations appear to be redundant or are at very high levels in the GO hierarchy. The GOSlim distribution of annotations shows that GOstat, Onto-Express and EasyGO provide similar GO distributions to those found in AgBase while annotations from DAVID show a different GOSlim distribution, again probably due to duplication and many non-specific terms. No consistent trends were found in results of GO term over/under representation analysis applied to the experimental data using different tools. While GOstat, David and Onto-Express could retrieve some significantly enriched terms, EasyGO did not show any significantly enriched terms. There was little agreement about the enriched terms identified by the tools. Conclusion: Different tools for functionally annotating gene sets and identifying significantly enriched GO categories differ widely in their results when applied to a test annotation gene set and an experimental dataset from chicken. These results emphasize the need for care when interpreting the results of such analysis and the lack of standardization of approaches.
Inappropriate format for Document type, expected simple value but got array, please use list format