Department of Biochemistry and Molecular & Cellular Biology, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC 20007, USA.
Biol Direct. 2010 Feb 18;5:12. doi: 10.1186/1745-6150-5-12.
Attempts to engage the scientific community to annotate biological data (such as protein/gene function) stored in databases have not been overly successful. There are several hypotheses on why this has not been successful but it is not clear which of these hypotheses are correct. In this study we have surveyed 50 biologists (who have recently published a paper characterizing a gene or protein) to better understand what would make them interested in providing input/contributions to biological databases. Based on our survey two things become clear: a) database managers need to proactively contact biologists to solicit contributions; and b) potential contributors need to be provided with an easy-to-use interface and clear instructions on what to annotate. Other factors such as 'reward' and 'employer/funding agency recognition' previously perceived as motivators was found to be less important. Based on this study we propose community annotation projects should devote resources to direct solicitation for input and streamlining of the processes or interfaces used to collect this input.
This article was reviewed by I. King Jordan, Daniel Haft and Yuriy Gusev.
试图让科学界参与到数据库中存储的生物数据（如蛋白质/基因功能）的注释工作，但并未取得过多成效。对于为何这一尝试并未成功有几种假设，但尚不清楚这些假设中的哪一种是正确的。在这项研究中，我们调查了 50 位生物学家（他们最近发表了一篇描述基因或蛋白质的论文），以更好地了解让他们有兴趣为生物数据库提供投入/贡献的原因。基于我们的调查，有两点变得清晰：a）数据库管理者需要主动联系生物学家以征求贡献；b）需要为潜在贡献者提供易于使用的界面和有关要注释内容的明确说明。以前被认为是激励因素的其他因素，如“奖励”和“雇主/资助机构认可”，则显得不那么重要。基于这项研究，我们建议社区注释项目应投入资源，直接征求投入意见，并简化用于收集这些投入的流程或界面。
本文由 I. King Jordan、Daniel Haft 和 Yuriy Gusev 审稿。
