More Like this

1. Data sharing and ontology use among agricultural genetics, genomics, and breeding databases and resources of the Agbiodata Consortium

   https://doi.org/10.1093/database/baad076  

   Clarke, Jennifer L ; Cooper, Laurel D ; Poelchau, Monica F ; Berardini, Tanya Z ; Elser, Justin ; Farmer, Andrew D ; Ficklin, Stephen ; Kumari, Sunita ; Laporte, Marie-Angélique ; Nelson, Rex T ; et al ( January 2023 , Database)

   Over the last couple of decades, there has been a rapid growth in the number and scope of agricultural genetics, genomics and breeding databases and resources. The AgBioData Consortium (https://www.agbiodata.org/) currently represents 44 databases and resources (https://www.agbiodata.org/databases) covering model or crop plant and animal GGB data, ontologies, pathways, genetic variation and breeding platforms (referred to as ‘databases’ throughout). One of the goals of the Consortium is to facilitate FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) data management and the integration of datasets which requires data sharing, along with structured vocabularies and/or ontologies. Two AgBioData working groups, focused on Data Sharing and Ontologies, respectively, conducted a Consortium-wide survey to assess the current status and future needs of the members in those areas. A total of 33 researchers responded to the survey, representing 37 databases. Results suggest that data-sharing practices by AgBioData databases are in a fairly healthy state, but it is not clear whether this is true for all metadata and data types across all databases; and that, ontology use has not substantially changed since a similar survey was conducted in 2017. Based on our evaluation of the survey results, we recommend (i) providing training for database personnel in a specific data-sharing techniques, as well as in ontology use; (ii) further study on what metadata is shared, and how well it is shared among databases; (iii) promoting an understanding of data sharing and ontologies in the stakeholder community; (iv) improving data sharing and ontologies for specific phenotypic data types and formats; and (v) lowering specific barriers to data sharing and ontology use, by identifying sustainability solutions, and the identification, promotion, or development of data standards. Combined, these improvements are likely to help AgBioData databases increase development efforts towards improved ontology use, and data sharing via programmatic means.

   Database URL https://www.agbiodata.org/databases

    

   more » « less
2. Genotype and phenotype data standardization, utilization and integration in the big data era for agricultural sciences

   https://doi.org/10.1093/database/baad088  

   Deng, Cecilia H ; Naithani, Sushma ; Kumari, Sunita ; Cobo-Simón, Irene ; Quezada-Rodríguez, Elsa H ; Skrabisova, Maria ; Gladman, Nick ; Correll, Melanie J ; Sikiru, Akeem Babatunde ; Afuwape, Olusola O ; et al ( January 2023 , Database)

   Large-scale genotype and phenotype data have been increasingly generated to identify genetic markers, understand gene function and evolution and facilitate genomic selection. These datasets hold immense value for both current and future studies, as they are vital for crop breeding, yield improvement and overall agricultural sustainability. However, integrating these datasets from heterogeneous sources presents significant challenges and hinders their effective utilization. We established the Genotype-Phenotype Working Group in November 2021 as a part of the AgBioData Consortium (https://www.agbiodata.org) to review current data types and resources that support archiving, analysis and visualization of genotype and phenotype data to understand the needs and challenges of the plant genomic research community. For 2021–22, we identified different types of datasets and examined metadata annotations related to experimental design/methods/sample collection, etc. Furthermore, we thoroughly reviewed publicly funded repositories for raw and processed data as well as secondary databases and knowledgebases that enable the integration of heterogeneous data in the context of the genome browser, pathway networks and tissue-specific gene expression. Based on our survey, we recommend a need for (i) additional infrastructural support for archiving many new data types, (ii) development of community standards for data annotation and formatting, (iii) resources for biocuration and (iv) analysis and visualization tools to connect genotype data with phenotype data to enhance knowledge synthesis and to foster translational research. Although this paper only covers the data and resources relevant to the plant research community, we expect that similar issues and needs are shared by researchers working on animals.

   Database URL: https://www.agbiodata.org.

    

   more » « less
3. The Temple University Digital Pathology Corpus: The Breast Tissue Subset

   https://doi.org/10.1109/SPMB52430.2021.9672275  

   Wevodau, Z. ; Doshna, B. ; Jhala, N. ; Akhtar, I. ; Obeid, I. ; Picone, J. ( December 2021 , Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium (SPMB))

   Obeid, I. (Ed.)

   The Neural Engineering Data Consortium (NEDC) is developing the Temple University Digital Pathology Corpus (TUDP), an open source database of high-resolution images from scanned pathology samples [1], as part of its National Science Foundation-funded Major Research Instrumentation grant titled “MRI: High Performance Digital Pathology Using Big Data and Machine Learning” [2]. The long-term goal of this project is to release one million images. We have currently scanned over 100,000 images and are in the process of annotating breast tissue data for our first official corpus release, v1.0.0. This release contains 3,505 annotated images of breast tissue including 74 patients with cancerous diagnoses (out of a total of 296 patients). In this poster, we will present an analysis of this corpus and discuss the challenges we have faced in efficiently producing high quality annotations of breast tissue. It is well known that state of the art algorithms in machine learning require vast amounts of data. Fields such as speech recognition [3], image recognition [4] and text processing [5] are able to deliver impressive performance with complex deep learning models because they have developed large corpora to support training of extremely high-dimensional models (e.g., billions of parameters). Other fields that do not have access to such data resources must rely on techniques in which existing models can be adapted to new datasets [6]. A preliminary version of this breast corpus release was tested in a pilot study using a baseline machine learning system, ResNet18 [7], that leverages several open-source Python tools. The pilot corpus was divided into three sets: train, development, and evaluation. Portions of these slides were manually annotated [1] using the nine labels in Table 1 [8] to identify five to ten examples of pathological features on each slide. Not every pathological feature is annotated, meaning excluded areas can include focuses particular to these labels that are not used for training. A summary of the number of patches within each label is given in Table 2. To maintain a balanced training set, 1,000 patches of each label were used to train the machine learning model. Throughout all sets, only annotated patches were involved in model development. The performance of this model in identifying all the patches in the evaluation set can be seen in the confusion matrix of classification accuracy in Table 3. The highest performing labels were background, 97% correct identification, and artifact, 76% correct identification. A correlation exists between labels with more than 6,000 development patches and accurate performance on the evaluation set. Additionally, these results indicated a need to further refine the annotation of invasive ductal carcinoma (“indc”), inflammation (“infl”), nonneoplastic features (“nneo”), normal (“norm”) and suspicious (“susp”). This pilot experiment motivated changes to the corpus that will be discussed in detail in this poster presentation. To increase the accuracy of the machine learning model, we modified how we addressed underperforming labels. One common source of error arose with how non-background labels were converted into patches. Large areas of background within other labels were isolated within a patch resulting in connective tissue misrepresenting a non-background label. In response, the annotation overlay margins were revised to exclude benign connective tissue in non-background labels. Corresponding patient reports and supporting immunohistochemical stains further guided annotation reviews. The microscopic diagnoses given by the primary pathologist in these reports detail the pathological findings within each tissue site, but not within each specific slide. The microscopic diagnoses informed revisions specifically targeting annotated regions classified as cancerous, ensuring that the labels “indc” and “dcis” were used only in situations where a micropathologist diagnosed it as such. Further differentiation of cancerous and precancerous labels, as well as the location of their focus on a slide, could be accomplished with supplemental immunohistochemically (IHC) stained slides. When distinguishing whether a focus is a nonneoplastic feature versus a cancerous growth, pathologists employ antigen targeting stains to the tissue in question to confirm the diagnosis. For example, a nonneoplastic feature of usual ductal hyperplasia will display diffuse staining for cytokeratin 5 (CK5) and no diffuse staining for estrogen receptor (ER), while a cancerous growth of ductal carcinoma in situ will have negative or focally positive staining for CK5 and diffuse staining for ER [9]. Many tissue samples contain cancerous and non-cancerous features with morphological overlaps that cause variability between annotators. The informative fields IHC slides provide could play an integral role in machine model pathology diagnostics. Following the revisions made on all the annotations, a second experiment was run using ResNet18. Compared to the pilot study, an increase of model prediction accuracy was seen for the labels indc, infl, nneo, norm, and null. This increase is correlated with an increase in annotated area and annotation accuracy. Model performance in identifying the suspicious label decreased by 25% due to the decrease of 57% in the total annotated area described by this label. A summary of the model performance is given in Table 4, which shows the new prediction accuracy and the absolute change in error rate compared to Table 3. The breast tissue subset we are developing includes 3,505 annotated breast pathology slides from 296 patients. The average size of a scanned SVS file is 363 MB. The annotations are stored in an XML format. A CSV version of the annotation file is also available which provides a flat, or simple, annotation that is easy for machine learning researchers to access and interface to their systems. Each patient is identified by an anonymized medical reference number. Within each patient’s directory, one or more sessions are identified, also anonymized to the first of the month in which the sample was taken. These sessions are broken into groupings of tissue taken on that date (in this case, breast tissue). A deidentified patient report stored as a flat text file is also available. Within these slides there are a total of 16,971 total annotated regions with an average of 4.84 annotations per slide. Among those annotations, 8,035 are non-cancerous (normal, background, null, and artifact,) 6,222 are carcinogenic signs (inflammation, nonneoplastic and suspicious,) and 2,714 are cancerous labels (ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive ductal carcinoma in situ.) The individual patients are split up into three sets: train, development, and evaluation. Of the 74 cancerous patients, 20 were allotted for both the development and evaluation sets, while the remain 34 were allotted for train. The remaining 222 patients were split up to preserve the overall distribution of labels within the corpus. This was done in hope of creating control sets for comparable studies. Overall, the development and evaluation sets each have 80 patients, while the training set has 136 patients. In a related component of this project, slides from the Fox Chase Cancer Center (FCCC) Biosample Repository (https://www.foxchase.org/research/facilities/genetic-research-facilities/biosample-repository -facility) are being digitized in addition to slides provided by Temple University Hospital. This data includes 18 different types of tissue including approximately 38.5% urinary tissue and 16.5% gynecological tissue. These slides and the metadata provided with them are already anonymized and include diagnoses in a spreadsheet with sample and patient ID. We plan to release over 13,000 unannotated slides from the FCCC Corpus simultaneously with v1.0.0 of TUDP. Details of this release will also be discussed in this poster. Few digitally annotated databases of pathology samples like TUDP exist due to the extensive data collection and processing required. The breast corpus subset should be released by November 2021. By December 2021 we should also release the unannotated FCCC data. We are currently annotating urinary tract data as well. We expect to release about 5,600 processed TUH slides in this subset. We have an additional 53,000 unprocessed TUH slides digitized. Corpora of this size will stimulate the development of a new generation of deep learning technology. In clinical settings where resources are limited, an assistive diagnoses model could support pathologists’ workload and even help prioritize suspected cancerous cases. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This material is supported by the National Science Foundation under grants nos. CNS-1726188 and 1925494. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. REFERENCES [1] N. Shawki et al., “The Temple University Digital Pathology Corpus,” in Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology: Emerging Trends in Research and Applications, 1st ed., I. Obeid, I. Selesnick, and J. Picone, Eds. New York City, New York, USA: Springer, 2020, pp. 67 104. https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783030368432. [2] J. Picone, T. Farkas, I. Obeid, and Y. Persidsky, “MRI: High Performance Digital Pathology Using Big Data and Machine Learning.” Major Research Instrumentation (MRI), Division of Computer and Network Systems, Award No. 1726188, January 1, 2018 – December 31, 2021. https://www. isip.piconepress.com/projects/nsf_dpath/. [3] A. Gulati et al., “Conformer: Convolution-augmented Transformer for Speech Recognition,” in Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association (INTERSPEECH), 2020, pp. 5036-5040. https://doi.org/10.21437/interspeech.2020-3015. [4] C.-J. Wu et al., “Machine Learning at Facebook: Understanding Inference at the Edge,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on High Performance Computer Architecture (HPCA), 2019, pp. 331–344. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8675201. [5] I. Caswell and B. Liang, “Recent Advances in Google Translate,” Google AI Blog: The latest from Google Research, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://ai.googleblog.com/2020/06/recent-advances-in-google-translate.html. [Accessed: 01-Aug-2021]. [6] V. Khalkhali, N. Shawki, V. Shah, M. Golmohammadi, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Low Latency Real-Time Seizure Detection Using Transfer Deep Learning,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium (SPMB), 2021, pp. 1 7. https://www.isip. piconepress.com/publications/conference_proceedings/2021/ieee_spmb/eeg_transfer_learning/. [7] J. Picone, T. Farkas, I. Obeid, and Y. Persidsky, “MRI: High Performance Digital Pathology Using Big Data and Machine Learning,” Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, 2020. https://www.isip.piconepress.com/publications/reports/2020/nsf/mri_dpath/. [8] I. Hunt, S. Husain, J. Simons, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Recent Advances in the Temple University Digital Pathology Corpus,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium (SPMB), 2019, pp. 1–4. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9037859. [9] A. P. Martinez, C. Cohen, K. Z. Hanley, and X. (Bill) Li, “Estrogen Receptor and Cytokeratin 5 Are Reliable Markers to Separate Usual Ductal Hyperplasia From Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia and Low-Grade Ductal Carcinoma In Situ,” Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med., vol. 140, no. 7, pp. 686–689, Apr. 2016. https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2015-0238-OA. 

   more » « less
4. A convenient, soil‐free method for the production of root nodules in soybean to study the effects of exogenous additives

   https://doi.org/10.1002/pld3.135  

   Roy Choudhury, Swarup ; Johns, Sarah M. ; Pandey, Sona ( April 2019 , Plant Direct)

   Legumes develop root nodules that harbor endosymbiotic bacteria, rhizobia. These rhizobia convert nitrogen to ammonia by biological nitrogen fixation. A thorough understanding of the biological nitrogen fixation in legumes and its regulation is key to develop sustainable agriculture. It is well known that plant hormones affect nodule formation; however, most studies are limited to model legumes due to their suitability for in vitro, plate‐based assays. Specifically, it is almost impossible to measure the effects of exogenous hormones or other additives during nodule development in crop legumes such as soybean as they have huge root system in soil. To circumvent this issue, the present research develops suitable media and growth conditions for efficient nodule development under in vitro, soil‐free conditions in an important legume crop, soybean. Moreover, we also evaluate the effects of all major phytohormones on soybean nodule development under identical growing conditions. Phytohormones such as abscisic acid (ABA) and jasmonic acid (JA) had an overall inhibitory effect and those such as gibberellic acid (GA) or brassinosteroids (BRs) had an overall positive effect on nodule formation. This versatile, inexpensive, scalable, and simple protocol provides several advantages over previously established methods. It is extremely time‐ and resource‐efficient, does not require special training or equipment, and produces highly reproducible results. The approach is expandable to other large legumes as well as for other exogenous additives.

    

   more » « less
5. Tephra Fusion 2022 workshop focused on best practices in tephra data recommends innovative computer solutions to build databases

   Wallace, K.L. ( January 2022 , EarthCube Annual Meeting 2022)

   A series of international workshops held in 2014, 2017, 2019, and 2022 focused on improving tephra studies from field collection through publication and encouraging FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable) data practices for tephra data and metadata. Two consensus needs for tephra studies emerged from the 2014 and 2017 workshops: (a) standardization of tephra field data collection, geochemical analysis, correlation, and data reporting, and (b) development of next generation computer tools and databases to facilitate information access across multidisciplinary communities. To achieve (a), we developed a series of recommendations for best practices in tephra studies, from sample collection through analysis and data reporting (https://zenodo.org/record/3866266). A 4-part virtual workshop series (https://tephrochronology.org/cot/Tephra2022/) was held in February and March, 2022, to update the tephra community on these developments, to get community feedback, to learn of unmet needs, and to plan a future roadmap for open and FAIR tephra data. More than 230 people from 25 nations registered for the workshop series. The community strongly emphasized the need for better computer systems, including physical infrastructure (repositories and servers), digital infrastructure (software and tools) and human infrastructure (people, training, and professional assistance), to store, manage and serve global tephra datasets. Some desired attributes of improved computer systems include: 1) user friendliness 2) ability to easily ingest multiparameter tephra data (using best practice recommended data fields); 3) interoperability with existing data repositories; 4) development of tool add-ons (plotting and statistics); 5) improved searchability 6) development of a tephra portal with access to distributed data systems, and 7) commitments to long-term support from funding agencies, publishers and the cyberinfrastructure community. 

   more » « less