Data standards can boost metabolomics research, and if there is a will, there is a way
Data standards can boost metabolomics research, and if there is a will, there is a way
Philippe Rocca-Serra 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 11
Reza M. Salek 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 11
Masanori Arita 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 11
Elon Correa 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 11
Saravanan Dayalan 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 11
Alejandra Gonzalez-Beltran 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 11
Tim Ebbels 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 11
Royston Goodacre 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 11
Janna Hastings 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 11
Kenneth Haug 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 11
Albert Koulman 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 11
Macha Nikolski 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11
Matej Oresic 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11
Susanna-Assunta Sansone 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 11
Daniel Schober 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 11
James Smith 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 11
Christoph Steinbeck 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 11
Mark R. Viant 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 11
Steffen Neumann 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 11
0 European Molecular Biology Laboratory, European Bioinformatics Institute (EMBL-EBI), Wellcome Trust Genome Campus , Hinxton, Cambridge CB10 1SD , UK
1 Oxford e-Research Centre, University of Oxford , 7 Keble Road, Oxford OX1 3QG , UK
2 & Steffen Neumann
3 MRC Human Nutrition Research, Elsie Widdowson Laboratory , 120 Fulbourn Road, Cambridge CB1 9NL , UK
4 Computational and Systems Medicine, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London , South Kensington, London SW7 2AZ , UK
5 Metabolomics Australia, The University of Melbourne , Parkville, VIC 3010 , Australia
6 School of Chemistry, Manchester Institute of Biotechnology, The University of Manchester , 131 Princess Street, Manchester M1 7DN , UK
7 University of Manchester, Centre for Endocrinology and Diabetes , Old St Mary's Building, Hathersage Road, Manchester M13 9WL , UK
8 CNRS/LaBRI, Universite ́ de Bordeaux , Talence , France
9 RIKEN Center for Sustainable Resource Science , Yokohama, Kanagawa 230-0045 , Japan
10 Steno Diabetes Center , 2820 Gentofte , Denmark
11 National Institute of Genetics , Mishima, Shizuoka 411-8540 , Japan
Thousands of articles using metabolomics approaches are published every year. With the increasing amounts of data being produced, mere description of investigations as text in manuscripts is not sufficient to enable re-use anymore: the underlying data needs to be published together with the findings in the literature to maximise the benefit from public and private expenditure and to take advantage of an enormous opportunity to improve scientific reproducibility in metabolomics and Philippe Rocca-Serra and Reza M Salek have contributed equally.
10 Bordeaux Bioinformatics Center, Universite´ de Bordeaux,
13 Department of Stress and Developmental Biology, Leibniz
Institute of Plant Biochemistry, Weinberg 3, 06120 Halle,
14 School of Biosciences, University of Birmingham,
Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
15 Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics,
Cambridge Computational Biology Institute, University of
Cambridge, Wilberforce Road, Cambridge CB3 0WA, UK
algorithms by the scientific community. Standards such as
ISA-Tab cover essential metadata, including the
experimental design, the applied protocols, association between
samples, data files and the experimental factors for further
statistical analysis. Altogether, they pave the way for both
reproducible research and data reuse, including
meta-analyses. Further incentives to prepare standards compliant data
sets include new opportunities to publish data sets, but also
require a little ‘‘arm twisting’’ in the author guidelines of
scientific journals to submit the data sets to public
repositories such as the NIH Metabolomics Workbench or
MetaboLights at EMBL-EBI. In the present article, we look at
standards for data sharing, investigate their impact in
metabolomics and give suggestions to improve their adoption.
Metabolomics Data standards
NMR Experimental metadata
HDF5 Hierarchical Data Format, version 5
InChI IUPAC International Chemical Identifier
ISA Investigation Study Assay
IUPAC International Union of Pure and Applied
CPEP Chemistry, Committee on Printed and
JCAMP Joint Committee on Atomic and Molecular
MASS mzXML-associated standard solutions
netCDF Network Common Data Format
PSI Proteomics Standardisation Initiative
SMILES Simplified molecular-input line-entry system
XML eXtensible Markup Language
Data standardisation efforts can trigger ambivalent and
often polarised reactions. Already when reading the normal
scientific literature, experiments are described in a rather
heterogeneous way with different levels of detail, or
ambiguous and sometimes underspecified concepts such as
‘‘replicate’’, where the true meaning is often buried in
traditions specific to human/plant or bacterial research
disciplines. With biological assays increasingly represented
in digital form, biology has become a data-intensive field
of disparate methods, with images, sequence reads and
spectra, to name only a few, all being acquired by the
droves. Modern scientists and data managers are therefore
faced with the tremendous challenge of handling,
preserving and archiving large amounts of data.
Metabolomics is no exception: PubMed returns 2460
hits for the search terms ‘‘metabolomics or metabonomics’’
from the year 2014 alone. Yet, only a tiny fraction of the
data from this scientific output has been made available to
the scientific community, data-miners and so-called
datawranglers through public repositories. In recent years, the
notion of FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and
Reusable) research data objects has been endorsed by an
increasing number of researchers and organisations,
including the Dutch Techcenter for Life Sciences (DTL,
http://www.dtls.nl/) and the FORCE11 (https://www.
force11.org) or the Data FAIRport (http://datafairport.org/)
initiatives. Data standards help to make data FAIR and
contribute to the Open Access philosophy.
Furthermore, in the wake of recent scientific malpractice
(Fang et al. 2012)
(Obokata et al. 2014)
(Stern et al. 2014)
and news on the
consequences,1 and in general the growing concern over the
rise in paper retractions,2 governments and funding
agencies are increasingly mandating reproducible research and
the release3 and long-term archival of raw data with
guaranteed rights to assess, review and appraise claims.
Finally, the call for making publicly funded data be
publicly available has resonated loudly and many groups are
weighing-into end data retention by scientists4
The required infrastructure for open metabolomics data
is getting into shape. The MetaboLights
(Haug et al. 2013)
repository at EMBL-EBI, for example, is experiencing a
rapid growth and currently (as of July 2015) has about 165
complete metabolomics experiments, with about 53,000
samples and 1120 protocols captured. The cross-repository
metabolomeXchange5 data-hub lists in total 270 (as of July
2015) publicly-accessible studies. Due to the submission
and curation processes, these data sets are already
standards-compliant at various levels.
One hurdle towards easy data access stems from the
diversity of instrument vendor specific data formats.
Working with these formats often involves commercial
software or proprietary libraries, possibly with associated
licensing costs and a restricted choice of operating systems.
1 ‘‘Japanese lab at centre of stem-cell scandal to be reformed…’’
2014. 10 Mar.
2 ‘‘The Importance of Being Reproducible: Keith Baggerly tells…’’
2013. 10 Mar. 2015
3 ‘‘NIH Sharing Policies and Related Guidance on NIH-Funded…’’
2007. 10 Mar. 2015 \http://grants.nih.gov/grants/sharing.htm[.
4 Free the Data Activity by Genetic Alliance
Such hurdles can rapidly impede access to data and limit
seamless and efficient data flow in analysis pipelines. They
also hamper the comparability of the results if data is to be
processed by different vendor-specific software with
possibly different algorithms. Such difficulties in data re-use
are well known among bioinformaticians, and one of the
main reason for standardisation efforts.
On one hand, it is fruitful to reduce the notational and
semantic heterogeneity in experimental descriptions and
results, to increase data interoperability and accelerate data
integration. On the other hand, compliance with data
standards is often perceived as an added burden. This is
especially the case when data are produced and consumed
locally in an insular manner, as compliance with the data
standard requires extra—seemingly unnecessary efforts.
However, considering the scientific enterprise as an
increasingly interconnected activity, data exchange and
preservation are both becoming essential requirements.
Furthermore, national and international funding agencies
are increasingly requesting publicly-funded research data
to become Open Access.
But how are standards born in the first place? There are
two main approaches: a ‘‘bottom-up’’ approach, usually by
grass-root community efforts leading to an open
(community agreed) standard, and a ‘‘top-down’’ approach, usually
governed by a formal standardisation body. The eventual
uptake and usage determines whether a specification
becomes a ‘‘de facto’’ standard, or simply a ‘‘de jure’’
standard, which might be approved formally but not
necessarily adopted widely. Most people working on such
standards will understand the famous anecdote like ‘‘How
Standards Proliferate’’ cartoon,6 describing a scenario
where several standards already exist, but are found
inadequate therefore yet another standard is proposed. This
phenomenon can result in fragmentation among the
developer- and user communities and cause friction
resulting in an even lower adoption.
Standards are therefore social constructs and represent
social agreements. To be successful, i.e. broadly adopted,
the development needs to achieve a careful balancing act,
ensuring both accurate description and ease of use. The
Pareto rule could be the guiding principle, where the initial
effort should cover 80 % of the use cases while the last
20 % would be the hardest to achieve.
In this manuscript, several areas where data standards
are relevant in metabolomics will be covered. Examples
will be given where standards succeeded, and ‘‘recipes’’
given on how to repeat such successes.
2 Standards for vendor independent raw data in metabolomics
Excellent examples of how standards have evolved over
time include the multiple data standards for mass
spectrometry (MS) and NMR spectroscopy raw data, as
described below, resulting in the widely used mzML
format and emerging nmrML format.
2.1 Mass spectrometry raw data standards
Early mass spectra were intended for human inspection,
initially as images on photo plates, or printed as spectra or
peak lists on paper. In the 1990s, the IUPAC CPEP
Subcommittee on Electronic Data Standards developed the
JCAMP formats7 for NMR and MS
(Lampen et al. 1994)
harmonise the peak lists and associated spectral metadata
in a human and computer readable manner. The human
readability had disadvantages as the storage space for the
textual representation required a whole byte for each digit.
The Network Common Data Form (netCDF) was
developed about 25 years ago
(Rew and Davis 1990)
for data in
vector and array representations, such as geospatial data in
climate models. The benefits of netCDF, which was
optimised for efficient storage and access, lead to the
specification of Analytical Data Interchange Protocol for
Chromatographic Data8 or ANDI-MS for short
, which was adopted by the American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM).9
About 10 years ago, two separate XML standards were
developed independently, mzXML
(Pedrioli et al. 2004)
under the guidance of the ‘‘mzXML-associated standard
solutions’’ (MASS) Committee, and mzData
et al. 2004)
within the proteomics standardisation initiative
(PSI). By 2009, the best aspects of both mzXML and
mzData were consolidated into a new standard called
(Martens et al. 2010)
and resulted in joint support
for a single open standard, thus eliminating duplicated
For all three XML based formats, the following factors
were vital for broad adoption: (1) the support by vendors of
MS instruments and the existence of freely available
converters from vendor formats to the corresponding XML, (2)
the availability of Open Source parser libraries, including
validators to ensure completeness, consistency and
unambiguous encoding of information. These in turn facilitate:
(1) the broad support in Open Source research software and
9 ‘‘ASTM International—Standards Worldwide.’’ 27 Mar. 2015
Fig. 1 Experimental workflows in metabolomics. Shown in light
blue are the relevant parts where data standards come into play.
Annotated data deposition in open repositories allow for data
reanalysis and re-use. a Traditional workflow using tools which do not
depend on data standards, and where data annotation and data
consequently (2) the adoption of mzML by major data
repositories such as MetaboLights
(Haug et al. 2013)
(Jones et al. 2006)
, which both encourage or even
enforce data deposition in vendor independent
The mzML schema is generic enough to even support
imaging mass spectrometry
(Schramm et al. 2012)
imzML format includes the required controlled vocabulary
and optimised data layout, but can be interconverted to
‘‘standard’’ mzML without information loss
(Race et al.
. The optimized imzML is supported by both
commercial and Open Source software, e.g. the Matlab-based
(Robichaud et al. 2013)
or the R-Bioconductor
based Cardinal package
(Bemis et al. 2015)
There are remaining challenges for mzML and
continued developments have been reported: for example, the
(Wilhelm et al. 2012)
uses the same structure
and all the ontology terms in mzML, but uses HDF5 as a
container format, thus allowing full inter-conversion while
benefitting from rapid access. Another improvement is the
‘‘numpress’’ compression scheme
(Teleman et al. 2014)
that allows a ‘‘lossy’’ representation of the binary spectral
data, where the actual accuracy can be chosen at
publication happen together with manuscript submission. b Fully
standards embedded workflow, where data annotation is part of the
standard operational procedures, data processing can use open
software, and data publication is an integral part of the dissemination
(Color figue online)
But what are the practical implications for the end users
(biologists and analytical chemists) of a standard? At some
stage, they need to convert MS raw data files from
proprietary formats into an open format such as mzML. This
will happen, either early and integrated with the
experimental process, or only later nearer the time of (eventual)
publication and data submission as shown in Fig. 1. An
early conversion is necessary if vendor agnostic or open
source data analysis tools are to be used. The reason that
only a few open tools support proprietary formats is the
added development effort and time required to enable
import of these formats and keep them up to date. Usually,
the vendors provide software libraries to access their own
formats. The downside is that these often have rather
complex application programming interfaces (APIs), and
worse, each vendor has their own proprietary API.
Currently, most of these interfaces require Windows dynamic
link libraries (DLLs) for the actual file access, which are
not compatible with other operating systems such as
MacOSX or Linux.
The second reason to convert the vendor files is that the
open formats can later be read by anyone, anywhere.
Researchers can transfer data between institutions and
collaborators, without the need for proprietary software
See also http://www.ms-utils.org/wiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SoftwareList for a growing link of MS related software
(which might not be available at another location or
laboratory). Another unwelcome but realistic scenario is that
the software for older instrumentation is neither compatible
with modern operating systems nor receives updates from
the vendor for economic reasons. This is an extremely
important aspect for long-term sustainability of data
management in a research institution.
For these reasons, it is recommended to convert all files
of a study to an open format soon after data collection, and
retain them alongside the raw data in the original vendor
format. One of the two main routes to mzML-formatted
data is using Open Source converters such as the msconvert
tool developed by the Proteowizard team
(Chambers et al.
, which is one of the reference implementations for
mzML. It can convert to mzML from Sciex, Bruker,
Thermo, Agilent, Shimadzu, Waters and also the earlier file
formats like mzData or mzXML and is consequently
widely used. As the developers do not have access to all
available instruments, support for the latest might take a
while to implement, and in some cases the vendor-provided
DLLs do not allow access to all features of the instrument.
Although Proteowizard was initially targeting LC/MS data,
it can also readily convert GC/MS data for example from
the Waters GCT Premier or Agilent instruments. The other
main route to mzML formatted data is by using vendor
supplied converters where available, such as the Bruker
CompassXport,10 AB SCIEX\MS Data Converter11 or in
case of GC/MS for example the LECO ChromaTOF-HRT
software. Only few vendor supplied converters are freely
available and some require a commercial license. The
wider community has to maintain constant pressure on all
10 ‘‘Software Downloads | Bruker Corporation.’’ 2012. 15 Feb. 2015
11 ‘‘Download—AB Sciex.’’ 2011. 10 Mar. 2015 \http://www.
vendors to implement full access to our data in open
formats. In the end, we are all their customers.
An important aspect is that metabolomics studies might
comprise many raw data files, so the conversion from the
vendor formats should not involve expensive manual
intervention to add information beyond what is already
stored in the instrument software. Furthermore, command
line converters are easier to incorporate into local data
processing pipelines. For bioinformaticians developing
either software or databases, it is highly recommended to
use existing I/O parsing software and libraries. Several
such mzML libraries have been developed for different
programming languages and software frameworks,
summarised in Table 1.
2.2 NMR raw data standards
For NMR data, The Metabolomics Innovation Centre
(TMIC) in Canada and the COordination of Standards in
MetabOlomicS (COSMOS) consortium
(Salek et al. 2015)
in Europe as well as other interested groups have
developed the XML based, vendor-neutral open exchange and
data storage format nmrML, which builds on efforts
(Sansone et al. 2007)
within the Metabolomics Standards
Initiative (MSI) and work at the Wishart lab12 and earlier
(Rubtsov et al. 2007)
. The format
has also heavily borrowed ideas from the HUPO-PSI
(Martens et al. 2010)
, including an XML
schema that defines the structure of an nmrML13 file and a
supporting controlled vocabulary (nmrCV14), which allows
the reuse of nmrCV terms in other formats and tools. The
development of nmrML takes place on www.nmrml.org,
13 ‘‘nmrML—home.’’ 2012. 26 Mar. 2015 \http://nmrml.org/[.
where the specification documents, example files, and
converters can be found. Java, Python, R and Matlab
parsers have been developed to convert raw vendor formats to
and from nmrML. Validator tools are available for quality
control of the generated nmrML files, especially their
completeness and correct semantics. The schema of
nmrML has already been designed with 2D NMR
experiments in mind, but the converters do not yet support 2D
data. We would like to make developers of NMR data
analysis software aware of our effort, and to welcome them
to contact us and implement access to this open format.
Likewise, users should start to consider submitting their 1D
NMR data to metabolomics repositories such as
(Haug et al. 2013)
in the nmrML format.
3 Study design and experimental metadata standards
We now discuss the differences between standards for
instrument output and standards for experimental metadata
and analysis reporting. The purpose of creating descriptive
metadata is to facilitate discovery of relevant experimental
data and to enable integrative and meta-analysis. The
outcome of biological experiments is highly influenced not
only by the experimental design or by the standard
operating procedures used, but also by the many processing
steps for peak picking, aligning, cleaning, transforming and
the modelling of raw data. Therefore, to enable the precise
reproduction of results, it is important to define reporting
requirements associated with experimental design, data
acquisition and variable manipulation during data
processing and downstream statistical analysis. This is
probably one of the most arduous tasks as the standardisation
efforts need to be sufficiently generic to support a broad
array of research questions and their particular
experimental setup, but at the same time specific enough to
ensure consistency, accuracy and reproducibility.
Several reporting guidelines have been created over the
years, some of the first include the recommendations
(Lindon et al. 2005)
by the Standard Metabolic Reporting
Structure (SMRS) initiative, a consortium of academic,
government and industrial scientists which first met in
2003. Later, the Metabolomics Standards Initiative (MSI)
was formed, and created a set of Core Information for
Metabolomics Reporting (CIMR) guidelines, which were
(Fiehn et al. 2007)
as a set of articles in the
3.1 Formats for standardised metadata capture
More structured (digital) schemata have been proposed,
including elaborate XML schema definitions (XSDs) or
database models like ArMet
(Jenkins et al. 2004)
(Scholz and Fiehn 2007)
, but also lightweight
spreadsheet templates (Fernie et al. 2011). A nice summary
of community accepted minimal information was presented
in a recent editorial
Although the benefits of standard compliant reporting is
undeniable, adoption is hampered by what is often viewed
as a steep learning curve that can be time consuming for
first time users. One remedy is to provide efficient software
tools that integrate better with experimental workflows and
provide configuration templates– sets of pre-defined
attributes for different sample types used to capture metadata.
Drop-down lists that limit the selection of particular fields
would also improve software usability, as would
improvements to available validation rules. However, it is
just as important to provide appropriate training to
scientists, to ensure they know how to perform and report
reproducible research. Institutions increasingly have
dedicated data managers who take care of the local data
management infrastructure and can potentially provide such
The ISA-Tab format
(Sansone et al. 2012)
is a metadata
standard that has gained a lot of momentum since its first
release in 2008, and many of the reporting guidelines and
considerations mentioned above have influenced its
creation. The format comprises a set of tab delimited
spreadsheet-like files that describe a given Investigation,
including one or more Studies comprising a set of samples,
and one or more Assays per study. The Investigation file
captures the title, authors and a brief description of the
underlying aim of a given investigation, a list of protocols
applied, bibliographic information and contact data. Study
files describe the origin of the sample material, its
characteristics, protocols and experimental design factors
relevant to the individual samples. Assay files specifically for
metabolomics assays require information on how
individual samples were extracted, possibly derivatized, and how
the analytical protocols were performed for the actual
measurements. For metabolomics, an additional fourth file
type was specified by the developers of MetaboLights,
which include tables of the intensities or concentrations of
spectral features or metabolites in the samples. Depending
on the platform technology, the table can be used to capture
the metabolite-relevant analytical information such as
chemical shift and multiplicity in NMR-based experiments,
and m/z, retention index, fragmentation and charge for
mass spectrometry. For identified spectral features, the
metabolite information includes the name, external
database identifiers, formula, and chemical structure as a
SMILES or an InChI string.
(Rocca-Serra et al. 2010)
is a standalone,
Java-based, platform-independent desktop application with
a range of facilities to enable standards-compliant creation
of ISA-Tab archives. The software enables ontology
searches and term lookup with a great deal of flexibility for
capturing metadata at various stages of the experimental
Large portions of the data types, the actual Study layout,
label descriptions, column names and recommended
ontologies, are specified through a set of ISA
configurations created with the ISAconfigurator. Several
configurations exist for specific assay technologies, such as gene
expression analysis, flow cytometry and different assay
types in metabolomics. With these configurations, it is also
possible to validate the metadata to ensure whether it
complies with available ‘Metabolomics Standards
Initiative’ (MSI) reporting recommendations. The ISAcreator
metabolomics plugin developed at the EMBL-EBI captures
the metabolites measured, with their quantification as
As mentioned earlier, a factor that contributed to the
widespread adoption of raw data standards was the support
shown by vendors of MS instruments and the incorporation
of the standards into their software. Similarly,
incorporating the study design and experimental metadata standards
into data processing and data management software
promotes adoption of standards. The addition of standards into
data management software, however, is not
straightforward. This is because software such as Laboratory
Information Management Systems (LIMS) and Electronic Lab
Notebooks (ELN) are usually designed to be, and marketed
as, generic products adaptable to a wide range of scenarios.
Incorporating standards as part of these data management
solutions attempts to make a generic solution work in a
specific (standardised) way. However, with well-defined
standards, this amalgamation should be achievable.
Successful incorporation of standards into data processing and
data management software would to some extent reduce
the researcher’s manual data analysis efforts, thus yielding
a tangible benefit for making data standards compliant
earlier. Table 2 gives an overview of the software
ecosystem around the ISA-Tab standard.
Another approach is the development of interoperable
tools, i.e., ‘‘metadata crosswalks’’ that facilitate exchange
of metadata. A crosswalk is a data conversion that maps
elements, semantics, or syntax from one metadata
scheme to those of another. The degree to which these
crosswalks are successful depends on the similarity of the
two schemes, the granularity of the elements, and the
compatibility of the content rules used to fill the elements
of each scheme.
An example of such crosswalk in the case of
metabolomics is the eXtensible Experiment Markup Language
(XEML). The XEML-Lab
(Hannemann et al. 2009)
(https://github.com/cbib/XEML-Lab) is an XML-based
framework for designing and documenting experiments in
an intuitive yet machine readable format, and to link
experimental metadata with any type of data generated in
the corresponding experiments, and ultimately, to make
both metadata and data available for data mining. XEML
descriptions are used in both the Golm Metabolome
(Hummel et al. 2007; Kopka et al. 2005)
http://gmd.mpimp-golm.mpg.de) and the PLATO database
(https://plato.codeplex.com) at INRA Bordeaux, which is a
micro plate processing pipeline that supports enzyme
activities and metabolite assays. The crosswalk is
implemented in the XEML-Lab software, which can load
experiments from these databases and export to ISA-Tab. If
required, information that is missing can be added from
within the XEML-Lab software. Other academic efforts
also demonstrated the feasibility to export experimental
data via metadata conversion to the ISA-Tab format as
shown by the MASTR-MS LIMS solution.15,16 Another
example for the export of metabolomics data into standard
formats is the very positive interaction with software
vendors such as Biocrates AG (PRS, personal
communication), showing that standard compliance does not have to
be taxing for the users.
While such metadata crosswalks are essential, they are
also labour intensive to develop and maintain. The
mapping of schemes with fewer elements (less granularity) to
those with more elements (more granularity) can be
4 How to weave data standards into life-science experiments
Figure 1 shows two potential scenarios for standards
compliant reporting of experiments. In Fig. 1a, the
experiment is performed in the traditional manner from
conception through to the manuscript writing. Journals are
increasingly requiring that the underlying study data are
made publicly available, so the relevant data and
information are prepared for upload at the end of the process.
Getting familiar with the data management life cycle and
tooling before starting a study can be very useful, since
some kind of data organisation is always required. This
moves data management from a retrospective activity to a
prospective one. So making sure from the beginning that
all information required later for publishing and data
sharing is available in one place, rather than scattered
across the hard drive and lab books, can be a time saver
15 ‘‘Mastr-ms code.’’ 2013. 28 Mar. 2015 \https://bitbucket.org/
16 ‘‘Mastr-MS — Mastr-MS 1.11.2 documentation.’’ 2013. 18 Feb.
(creation of templates for
ISA-Tab for specific
ISA-Tab creation and
Link to analysis platforms
XML-based experiment and
metadata description tools
later. Standards need not be a hindrance, but should be
perceived and understood as vehicles to increased trust,
secondary usage and higher visibility of scientific output.
Reused data is useful data and is data that gets cited
(Piwowar et al. 2007)
. Standards compliance is just another
standard operating procedure applied to the dissemination
of the research output. This alternative approach is shown
in Fig. 1b, where the whole experiment is driven by
standards compliant results generation, here demonstrated
using the ISA-Tab terms and concepts.
While it may sound trivial, creating a crisp title and
short description of the Investigation as part of the ISA-Tab
metadata helps focus on the question at hand. It is also
beneficial if the institute or laboratory has established short
guidelines on naming and the directory hierarchy. This
helps to pass on institutional best practice to newcomers,
just as for the laboratory SOPs. The ISA files can for
example be kept close to experimental data, e.g. in the
Then, the Study table is populated with the sample
details and the experimental design factors, such as
genotypes, treatments or time points and very importantly, the
tracking and annotation of QC samples. Often, such a
table is used anyway using spreadsheet software to keep
track of the samples. Furthermore, some MS or NMR
instrument control software can use this information for the
Authors must deposit their data before submission, following the MSI guidelines.
MetaboLights listed as recommended repository
sample processing control, either directly or with small
custom conversion scripts for each Assay.
Immediately after the measurements are performed,
measured data should be converted to an open format such
as mzML for both the subsequent processing and/or the
later data publication, and the resulting filenames should be
added to the Assay table. The ISA-Tab files now contain all
information up to the data processing and analysis steps.
Several data processing environments can take advantage
of the annotation in ISA-Tab archives, for example the
Galaxy workflow system
(Goecks et al. 2010)
(Gentleman et al. 2004)
. The R
environment allows workflows to be written that combine
(Gonza´lez-Beltra´n et al. 2014)
et al. 2006)
packages, and the creation for example, of
routine Quality Control reports for the whole experiment,
or after further processing statistics and visualisations. The
(Franceschi et al. 2014)
is a database and web
application that provides a data processing workflow for
untargeted MS-based metabolomics experiments with the
incremental addition of ISA-Tab data as a core concept.
5 On carrots and sticks, or ‘‘where there is a will, there is a way’’
One of the hurdles on the road to standard adoption and
uptake can be summarised in the question ‘‘What’s in it for
me?’’ For an individual contributor, there can appear to be
no immediate (short term) return on investment. A more
top down solution is the creation and enforcement of data
release policies which also include the recommendation to
adopt data standards by funding bodies. The US NIH, for
instance, imposes data release within 6 months of
production. But data management is frequently regarded as the
ugly duckling of bioinformatics, and the burden and costs
of data management are often underestimated.
Consequently the funding agencies, while mandating policies and
recommending data standards, need to support data
managers and research scientists for the extra expense in time
associated with the additional work that standard
compliance requires. Grant applications should thus include data
management costs just like laboratory consumables.
On the bright side, publishers are playing an increasing
role to reward scientists for their efforts in planning,
producing and sharing datasets for the benefit of the
scientific community. Datasets (and what are increasingly
known as research objects) are being made citable and
reusable, whose producers can be clearly identified, for
instance by means of ORCID, which allows unambiguous
tracking of persons and organisations. It has been shown
that articles for which the data has been made available
have increased citation rates
(Piwowar et al. 2007)
Publishing Group’s Scientific Data and BiomedCentral’s
Gigascience are what is known as ‘data journals’. These
publications allow researchers to release their data and
thereby provide the means for proper scholarly
dissemination of their work via modern means, and without the
need for a ground-breaking biological advance. This also
has the added benefit of countering publication bias, where
only positive results are published. Both journals support
ISA-Tab format for structuring and releasing experimental
metadata and issue DOIs for the data sets. Other journals
such as f1000Research publish ‘‘Data Notes’’, and more
publishers are currently updating their data policies.
Table 3 provides some examples for journal data
deposition policies. A regularly updated list of journal research
data policies is being compiled by the BioSharing
Information Resource initiative17 in collaboration with a JISC
pilot initiative.18 In BioSharing these will be cross-linked to
the standards and databases, enabling access and
crosssearch of the information, on which a variety of stakeholders
can base their decisions. Specifically, journals, researchers
and funders will be able to recommend or select mature and
community endorsed databases and standards, and
developers and curators of repositories and content standards will
be aware of the requirements they need to meet to ensure
their products are discoverable and well described so that
they can be used by researchers or recommended by journals
and funders. Biosharing catalogue currently provides a
dedicated collection, which lists standards and databases
relevant to the field: https://biosharing.org/collection/Meta
This is possibly a game changer as these initiatives
provide a unique incentive for scientists to release their data in
standard compliant fashion. In return? A higher visibility of
the scientific output as data that can be trusted, mined,
reused, mashed up and above all cited and acknowledged.
However, the metabolomics community lags 10 years
behind the transcriptomics and proteomics communities in
terms of learning-curve, maturity and acceptance of its
resources. Metabolomics repositories face the same arduous
situation as ArrayExpress
(Brazma et al. 2003)
(Edgar et al. 2002)
when they were launched. MageML
(Spellman et al. 2002)
was the metadata scheme for
transcriptomics experiments, but the lack of timely software
support for this complex XML format led to the development
of the simpler format MAGE-TAB. Many data standards in
metabolomics such as ISA-Tab
(Sansone et al. 2012)
(Griss et al. 2014)
and the mwTab used by the NIH
metabolomics workbench have been modelled on, and learned from,
the earlier -Omics formats. The combination of ‘arm twisting’
by publishers and funding agencies and at the same time
loosening the annotation requirements resulted in the US and
European repositories growing considerably. Today, no one
doubts the value of these resources, as exemplified in several
(Chen et al. 2010)
(Rhodes and Chinnaiyan
(Dhanasekaran et al. 2014)
. By now, data
deposition to ArrayExpress and GEO is part of the routine work for
anyone working on transcription profiling, and likewise the
deposition of proteomics data to the member databases of the
(Vizcano et al. 2014)
and sharing excel. This was exemplified e.g. in
et al. 2014)
, where the authors used three different data sets
from MetaboLights, including GC–MS and NMR datasets
(MTBLS1, MTBLS24, MTBLS40) to investigate the
effects of scaling metabolomics data prior to analysis with
multivariate methods. The ability to use multiple data sets
allows overall conclusions to be drawn on the most
sensible scaling methods, which might then be generally
applicable to similar metabolomics data.
Another example for re-use probably not anticipated by
the original depositors is the MTBLS38 study in
MetaboLights, which is a collection of biologically-relevant plant
metabolite standards which were measured for the
development and validation of MassCascade
(Beisken et al.
. This data was used by M. Stravs (Eawag, CH),
during a training workshop, to demonstrate the use of
(Stravs et al. 2013)
to extract, annotate and
recalibrate MS/MS data, and finally create 58 new
reference spectra from MetaboLights
(Haug et al. 2013)
(Horai et al. 2010)
The deposited data also helps in the development of
novel computational approaches. Stanstrup and Vrhovsˇek
used metabolite data from nine studies MTBLS4/17/19/20/
36/38/39/4/52 and MTBLS87 along with other data sets for
the development and evaluation of the www.predret.org
retention time mapping database
(Stanstrup et al. 2015)
In all these cases, the availability of the data in a
standard format simplified or enabled the re-use. This
demonstrated again that it is critical that publicly funded
datasets are made available to the scientific community for
mining and meta-analysis in a reasonable time frame.
An additional aspect pertains to the didactics of science:
it will make training of data scientists easier, if real datasets
can be used in textbooks and training courses. This requires
trust: trust in the fact that repository content will grow and
data will be discoverable; trust in the fact that enough
individuals and institutes will contribute; trust that
contributions will be of good enough quality so as to enable
reuse, and trust that few will have their discoveries
scooped. On this one last point, it seems that very few, if
any, such cases can be documented. On the other hand,
unrestricted access to data leads to critical review and early
detection of reproducibility issues.
6 Examples where data re-use boosted research
In metabolomics, as in other fields, the ability to download
and use legacy data to demonstrate new or to compare
existing data analysis approaches is where data standards
Metabolomics standards have started to emerge about a
decade ago, and this mostly concerned recommendations
about which information had to be reported in the scientific
literature. With increasing amounts of data being produced,
mere description in manuscripts is no longer sufficient. We
have shown that creating and sharing standards compliant
data and metadata for metabolomics experiments is
At the same time, it is important to bear in mind that
coming up with reporting guidelines is only one aspect of
the standardisation process, and possibly even the easiest.
The main challenge is to transform the guidelines into a
robust syntax with defined semantics and to create
successful reference implementations. These can only be
achieved by building a set of free, vendor and platform
independent software tools around the specifications for
data manipulation, and to foster the buy-in from
‘powerusers’ to ensure that relevant use cases are covered.
Most MS instrument vendors support raw data standards
like mzML either directly or by collaborating with open
source projects like Proteowizard. To be on the safe side, a
tender description for a new instrument should include the
requirement to export complete and fully calibrated raw
data into mzML. If the analytics and data processing are
outsourced, the contract should make sure that in addition
to the results, also the primary and processed data are
provided in open formats.
For metabolomics, metadata capturing has made big
leaps in recent years. Not only have simple-to-process but
versatile standards like ISA-Tab emerged, but tools such as
ISAcreator have explored template generation for factorial
study designs and this example should be followed for
capturing experimental metadata. On top of that, metadata
standards are increasingly used in data processing pipelines
like MetaDB, or frameworks like R/Bioconductor and
Galaxy, providing a carrot for users by simplifying the
downstream data analysis steps.
By regularising how information is structured and
reported, standards make it easier to distribute, disseminate
and exchange information. Metabolomics repositories like
the Metabolomics Workbench or MetaboLights are
available to provide all data, and make it easy for scientists to
fulfill the requirements of the journals to deposit research
data associated with a manuscript. In related disciplines,
annotation standards such as MIAME guidelines
et al. 2001)
or the Gene Ontology
(Ashburner et al. 2000)
controlled vocabulary have become essential resources in
modern molecular and computational biology.
Standards are developed to ensure that scientific
information is delivered consistently, efficiently and
meaningfully to the benefit of the community. Building such
infrastructure does not occur overnight, and requires
investment from all parties and also appreciation from
funding agencies and stakeholders to acknowledge that
data management is a new, essential scientific activity. This
should be properly evaluated and factored in by funding
agencies when supporting research efforts.
Therefore, instead of being seen as a burden,
standardisation efforts and standards should be in fact perceived as
unique helping tools to enhance the impact of the work
carried out by scientists. Indeed, the examples presented
above have shown that new types of research are made
possible by exploiting a growing ‘data lake’, for example
making it easier to assemble virtual cohorts by retrieving
Open Access datasets for testing and evaluating algorithms
or to perform meta-analysis.
Sometimes, it is simply about ‘‘just doing it’’, or as the
old adage goes, ‘‘where there is a will, there is a way’’.
Acknowledgments PRS, SAS, DS, SN, RS, CS, TE acknowledge
funding from the European Commission COSMOS Grant EC312941.
TE, SN, DS, RS, CS acknowledges funding from the European
Commission PhenoMeNal Grant EC654241. MN acknowledges
funding from the Institut Francais de Bioinformatique (IFB) grant PIA
INBS 2012. KH and CS acknowledge funding from the UK BBSRC
Grants BB/I000933/1, BB/L024152/1, BB/K021125/1 as well as
MRC Grant MR/L01632X/1. SD acknowledges funding from the
Australian National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy.
SAS acknowledges funding from BBSRC BB/L024101/1, BB/
J020265/1 (UK-China partnering award), BB/L005069/1 (Delivering
ELIXIR-UK) and the University of Oxford e-Research Centre. PRS
acknowledges IMI eTRIKS and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, Basel,
Switzerland. AGB acknowledges K BBSRC Grant BB/L024101/1.
Compliance with ethical standards
Compliance with ethical requirements This article does not
contain any studies with human or animal subjects.
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://crea
tivecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give
appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a
link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were
Ashburner , M. , Ball , C. A. , Blake , J. A. , Botstein , D. , Butler , H. , Cherry , J. M. , et al. ( 2000 ). Gene ontology: Tool for the unification of biology. the gene ontology consortium . Nature Genetics , 25 ( 1 ), 25 - 29 . doi: 10 .1038/75556.
Beisken , S. , Earll , M. , Portwood , D. , Seymour , M. , & Steinbeck , C. ( 2014 ). MassCascade: Visual programming for LC-MS data processing in metabolomics . Molecular Informatics , 33 ( 4 ), 307 - 310 . doi: 10 .1002/minf.201400016.
Bemis , K. D. , Harry , A. , Eberlin , L. S. , Ferreira , C., van de Ven, S. M. , Mallick , P. , Stolowitz , M. , & Vitek , O. ( 2015 ). Cardinal: An R package for statistical analysis of mass spectrometry-based imaging experiments . Bioinformatics , 31 ( 14 ), 2418 - 2420 . doi: 10 .1093/bioinformatics/btv146.
Brazma , A. , Hingamp , P. , Quackenbush , J. , Sherlock , G. , Spellman , P. , Stoeckert , C. , et al. ( 2001 ). Minimum information about a microarray experiment (MIAME)-toward standards for microarray data . Nature Genetics , 29 ( 4 ), 365 - 371 . doi: 10 .1038/ng1201- 365 .
Brazma , A. , Parkinson , H. , Sarkans , U. , Shojatalab , M. , Vilo , J. , Abeygunawardena , N. , et al. ( 2003 ). ArrayExpress-a public repository for microarray gene expression data at the EBI . Nucleic Acids Research , 31 ( 1 ), 68 - 71 . doi: 10 .1093/nar/gkg091.
Chambers , M. C. , Maclean , B. , Burke , R. , Amodei , D. , Ruderman , D. L. , Neumann , S. , et al. ( 2012 ). A cross-platform toolkit for mass spectrometry and proteomics . Nature Biotechnology , 30 ( 10 ), 918 - 920 . doi: 10 .1038/nbt.2377.
Chen , R. , Sigdel , T. K. , Li , L. , Kambham , N. , Dudley , J. T. , Hsieh , S.-C., et al. ( 2010 ). Differentially expressed RNA from public microarray data identifies serum protein biomarkers for crossorgan transplant rejection and other conditions . PLoS Computational Biology. doi:10 .1371/journal.pcbi. 1000940 .
Dhanasekaran , S. M. , Balbin , O. A. , Chen , G. , Nadal , E. , KalyanaSundaram , S. , Pan , J. , Veeneman , B. , Cao , X. , Malik , R. , Vats , P. , Wang , R. , Huang , S. , Zhong , J. , Jing , X. , Iyer , M. , Wu , Y.-M. , Harms , P. W. , Lin , J. , Reddy , R. , Brennan , C. , Palanisamy , N. , Chang , A. C. , Truini , A. , Truini , M. , Robinson , D. R. , Beer , D. G. , & Chinnaiyan , A. M. ( 2014 ). Transcriptome meta-analysis of lung cancer reveals recurrent aberrations in NRG1 and Hippo pathway genes . Nature Communications 5 , 5893 . doi: 10 .1038/ncomms6893.
Edgar , R. , Domrachev , M. , & Lash , A. E. ( 2002 ). Gene Expression Omnibus: NCBI gene expression and hybridization array data repository . Nucleic Acids Research , 30 ( 1 ), 207 - 210 . doi: 10 . 1093/nar/30.1.207.
Editorial ( 2014 ). STAP retracted . Nature 511 ( 7507 ), 5 - 6 .
Erickson , B. ( 2000 ). Government and Society: ANDI MS standard finalized . Analytical Chemistry , 72 ( 3 ), 103. doi: 10 .1021/ ac002727b.
Fang , F. C. , Steen , R. G. , & Casadevall , A. ( 2012 ). Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA , 109 ( 42 ), 17028 - 17033 . doi: 10 .1073/pnas.1212247109.
Fernie , A. R. , Aharoni , A. , Willmitzer , L. , Stitt , M. , Tohge , T. , Kopka , J. , et al. ( 2011 ). Recommendations for reporting metabolite data . Plant Cell , 23 ( 7 ), 2477 - 2482 . doi: 10 .1105/tpc. 111.086272.
Fiehn , O. , Robertson , D. , Griffin , J., van der Werf, M. , Nikolau , B. , Morrison , N. , et al. ( 2007 ). The metabolomics standards initiative (MSI) . Metabolomics , 3 ( 3 ), 175 - 178 . doi: 10 .1007/ s11306-007-0070-6.
Franceschi , P. , Mylonas , R. , Shahaf , N. , Scholz , M. , Arapitsas , P. , Masuero , D. , et al. ( 2014 ). MetaDB a data processing workflow in untargeted MS-based metabolomics experiments . Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology , 2 , 72. doi: 10 .3389/fbioe. 2014 . 00072 .
Gentleman , R. C. , Carey , V. J. , Bates , D. M. , Bolstad , B. , Dettling , M. , Dudoit , S. , et al. ( 2004 ). Bioconductor: Open software development for computational biology and bioinformatics . Genome Biology , 5 ( 10 ), R80. doi: 10 .1186/gb-2004-5- 10 -r80.
Goecks , J. , Nekrutenko , A. , Taylor , J., & Team , T. G. ( 2010 ). Galaxy: A comprehensive approach for supporting accessible, reproducible, and transparent computational research in the life sciences . Genome Biology 11 ( 8 ), R86. doi: 10 .1186/gb-2010 -11- 8-r86.
Gonza´lez-Beltra´n, A. , Neumann , S. , Maguire , E. , Sansone , S.-A. , & Rocca-Serra , P. ( 2014 ). The Risa R/Bioconductor package: integrative data analysis from experimental metadata and back again . BMC Bioinformatics 15 , S11. doi: 10 .1186/ 1471 -2105-15-S1-S11.
Goodacre , R. ( 2014 ). Water, water, every where, but rarely any drop to drink . Metabolomics, 10 ( 1 ), 5 - 7 . doi: 10 .1007/s11306-013- 0618-6.
Griss , J. , Jones , A. R. , Sachsenberg , T. , Walzer , M. , Gatto , L. , Hartler , J. , et al. ( 2014 ). The mzTab data exchange format: communicating mass-spectrometry-based proteomics and metabolomics experimental results to a wider audience . Molecular and Cellular Proteomics , 13 ( 10 ), 2765 - 2775 . doi: 10 .1074/mcp. O113 .036681.
Gromski , P. S. , Xu , Y. , Hollywood , K. A. , Turner , M. L. , & Goodacre , R. ( 2014 ). The influence of scaling metabolomics data on model classification accuracy . Metabolomics , 11 ( 3 ), 684 - 695 . doi: 10 .1007/s11306-014-0738-7.
Hannemann , J. , Poorter , H. , Usadel , B. , Bla¨sing, O. E. , Finck , A. , Tardieu , F. , et al. ( 2009 ). Xeml Lab: A tool that supports the design of experiments at a graphical interface and generates computer-readable metadata files, which capture information about genotypes, growth conditions, environmental perturbations and sampling strategy . Plant, Cell and Environment , 32 ( 9 ), 1185 - 1200 . doi: 10 .1111/j.1365- 3040 . 2009 . 01964 .x.
Haug , K. , Salek , R. M. , Conesa , P. , Hastings , J., de Matos, P. , Rijnbeek , M. , Mahendraker , T. , Williams , M. , Neumann , S. , Rocca-Serra , P. , Maguire , E. , GonzA˜ ¡lez-BeltrA˜ ¡n, A. , Sansone , S.-A. , Griffin , J. L. , & Steinbeck , C. ( 2013 ). MetaboLights-an open-access general-purpose repository for metabolomics studies and associated meta-data . Nucleic Acids Research 41 ( Database issue ), D781 - D786 . doi: 10 .1093/nar/gks1004.
Horai , H. , Arita , M. , Kanaya , S. , Nihei , Y. , Ikeda , T. , Suwa , K. , et al. ( 2010 ). MassBank: A public repository for sharing mass spectral data for life sciences . Journal of Mass Spectrometry , 45 ( 7 ), 703 - 714 . doi: 10 .1002/jms.1777.
Hummel , J. , Selbig , J. , Walther , D. , & Kopka , J. ( 2007 ). The Golm Metabolome Database: A database for GC-MS based metabolite profiling . In Metabolomics A Powerful Tool in Systems Biology (pp. 75 - 95 ). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer. doi: 10 .1007/4735_2007_ 0229 .
Jenkins , H. , Hardy , N. , Beckmann , M. , Draper , J. , Smith , A. R. , Taylor , J., et al. ( 2004 ). A proposed framework for the description of plant metabolomics experiments and their results . Nature Biotechnology , 22 ( 12 ), 1601 - 1606 . doi: 10 .1038/nbt1041.
Jones , P. , Coˆte´, R. G. , Martens , L. , Quinn , A. F. , Taylor , C. F., Derache , W. , et al. ( 2006 ). PRIDE: a public repository of protein and peptide identifications for the proteomics community . Nucleic Acids Research , 34 ( Database-Issue ) , 659 - 663 . doi: 10 . 1093/nar/gkj138.
Kopka , J. , Schauer , N. , Krueger , S. , Birkemeyer , C. , Usadel , B. , Bergmuller , E. , Dormann , P. , Weckwerth , W. , Gibon , Y. , Stitt , M. , Willmitzer , L. , Fernie , A. R. , & Steinhauser , D. ( 2005 ). : The Golm Metabolome Database. Bioinformatics 21 ( 8 ), 1635 - 1638 . doi: 10 .1093/bioinformatics/ bti236.
Lampen , P. , Hillig , H. , Davies , A. N. , & Linscheid , M. ( 1994 ). JCAMP-DX for mass spectrometry . Applied Spectroscopy 48 ( 12 ), 1545 - 1552 . doi: 10 .1366/0003702944027840.
Lindon , J. C. , Nicholson , J. K. , Holmes , E. , Keun , H. C. , Craig , A. , Pearce , J. T. M. , et al. ( 2005 ). Summary recommendations for standardization and reporting of metabolic analyses . Nature Biotechnology , 23 ( 7 ), 833 - 838 . doi: 10 .1038/nbt0705- 833 .
Martens , L. , Chambers , M. , Sturm , M. , Kessner , D. , Levander , F. , Shofstahl , J. , et al. ( 2010 ). mzML-A community standard for mass spectrometry data . Molecular Cell. doi:10.1074/mcp.R110 . 000133.
Molloy , J. C. ( 2011 ). The open knowledge foundation: Open data means better science . PLoS Biology , 9 ( 12 ), e1001195 . doi: 10 . 1371/journal.pbio. 1001195 .
Obokata , H. , Wakayama , T. , Sasai , Y. , Kojima , K. , Vacanti , M. P. , Niwa , H. , Yamato , M. , & Vacanti , C. A. ( 2014 ). Retraction: Stimulus-triggered fate conversion of somatic cells into pluripotency . Nature 511 ( 7507 ), 112 . doi: 10 .1038/nature13598.
Orchard , S. , Taylor , C., Hermjakob , H. , Zhu , W. , Julian , R. , & Apweiler , R. ( 2004 ). Current status of proteomic standards development . Expert Review of Proteomics , 1 ( 2 ), 179 - 183 . doi: 10 .1586/14789422.214.171.124.
Pedrioli , P. G. A. , Eng , J. K. , Hubley , R. , Vogelzang , M. , Deutsch , E. W. , Raught , B. , et al. ( 2004 ). A common open representation of mass spectrometry data and its application to proteomics research . Nature Biotechnology , 22 ( 11 ), 1459 - 1466 . doi: 10 . 1038/nbt1031.
Piwowar , H. A. , Day , R. S. , & Fridsma , D. B. ( 2007 ). Sharing detailed research data is associated with increased citation rate . PLoS One , 2 ( 3 ), e308 . doi: 10 .1371/journal.pone. 0000308 .
Race , A. M. , Styles , I. B. , & Bunch , J. ( 2012 ). Inclusive sharing of mass spectrometry imaging data requires a converter for all . Journal of Proteomics , 75 ( 16 ), 5111 - 5112 . doi: 10 .1016/j.jprot. 2012 . 05 .035.
Rew , R. , & Davis , G. ( 1990 ). NetCDF: An interface for scientific data access . Computer Graphics and Applications , 10 ( 4 ), 76 - 82 .
Rhodes , D. R. , & Chinnaiyan , A. M. ( 2005 ). Integrative analysis of the cancer transcriptome . Nature Genetics 37 ( Suppl ), S31 - S37 . doi: 10 .1038/ng1570.
Robichaud , G. , Garrard , K. P. , Barry , J. A. , & Muddiman , D. C. ( 2013 ). MSiReader: An open-source interface to view and analyze high resolving power MS imaging files on Matlab platform . Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry , 24 ( 5 ), 718 - 721 . doi: 10 .1007/s13361-013-0607-z.
Rocca-Serra , P. , Brandizi , M. , Maguire , E. , Sklyar , N. , Taylor , C., Begley , K. , Field , D. , Harris , S. , Hide , W. , Hofmann , O. , Neumann , S. , Sterk , P. , Tong , W. , & Sansone , S.-A. ( 2010 ). ISA software suite: Supporting standards-compliant experimental annotation and enabling curation at the community level . Bioinformatics 26 ( 18 ), 2354 - 2356 . doi: 10 .1093/bioinformatics/btq415.
Rubtsov , D. V. , Jenkins , H. , Ludwig , C. , Easton , J. , Viant , M. R. , Gu¨nther, U., et al. ( 2007 ). Proposed reporting requirements for the description of nmr-based metabolomics experiments . Metabolomics , 3 ( 3 ), 223 - 229 . doi: 10 .1007/s11306-006-0040-4.
Salek , R. M. , Neumann , S. , Schober , D. , Hummel , J. , Billiau , K. , Kopka , J. , Correa , E. , Reijmers , T. , Rosato , A. , Tenori , L. et al. ( 2015 ). Coordination of standards in metabolomics (cosmos): Facilitating integrated metabolomics data access . Metabolomics , 11 ( 6 ), 1587 - 1597 . doi: 10 .1007/s11306-015-0810-y.
Sansone , S. , Fan , T. , Goodacre , R. , Griffin , J. , Hardy , N. , KaddurahDaouk , R., et al. ( 2007 ). The metabolomics standards initiative . Nature Biotechnology , 25 , 846 - 848 . doi: 10 .1038/nbt0807- 846b .
Sansone , S.-A. , Rocca-Serra , P. , Field , D. , Maguire , E. , Taylor , C., Hofmann , O. , et al. ( 2012 ). Toward interoperable bioscience data . Nature Genetics , 44 ( 2 ), 121 - 126 . doi: 10 .1038/ng.1054.
Scholz , M. , & Fiehn , O. ( 2007 ). Setupx-a public study design database for metabolomic projects . Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing. doi:10 .1142/9789812772435_ 0017 .
Schramm , T. , Hester , A. , Klinkert , I. , Both , J.-P. , Heeren , R. M. A. , Brunelle , A. , et al. ( 2012 ). imzML-a common data format for the flexible exchange and processing of mass spectrometry imaging data . Journal of Proteomics , 75 ( 16 ), 5106 - 5110 . doi: 10 .1016/j. jprot. 2012 . 07 .026.
Smith , C. , Want , E., O'Maille , G. , Abagyan , R. , & Siuzdak , G. ( 2006 ). XCMS: Processing mass spectrometry data for metabolite profiling using nonlinear peak alignment, matching and identification . Analytical Chemistry , 78 ( 3 ), 779 - 787 . doi: 10 . 1021/ac051437y.
Spellman , P. T. , Miller , M. , Stewart , J. , Troup , C. , Sarkans , U. , Chervitz , S. , Bernhart , D. , Sherlock , G. , Ball , C. , Lepage , M. , Swiatek , M. , Marks , W. L. , Goncalves , J. , Markel , S. , Iordan , D. , Shojatalab , M. , Pizarro , A. , White , J. , Hubley , R. , Deutsch , E. , Senger , M. , Aronow , B. J. , Robinson , A. , Bassett , D. , Stoeckert , Jr, C. J. , & Brazma , A. ( 2002 ). Design and implementation of microarray gene expression markup language (MAGE-ML) . Genome Biology. doi:10 .1186/gb-2002-3-9-research0046.
Stanstrup , J. , Neumann , S. , & Vrhovsˇek , U. ( 2015 ). PredRet: Prediction of retention time by direct mapping between multiple chromatographic systems . Analytical Chemistry , 87 ( 18 ), 9421 - 9428 . doi: 10 .1021/acs.analchem.5b02287.
Stern , A. M. , Casadevall , A. , Steen , R. G. , & Fang , F. C. ( 2014 ). Financial costs and personal consequences of research misconduct resulting in retracted publications . Elife , 3 , e02956. doi: 10 . 7554/eLife.02956.
Stravs , M. A. , Schymanski , E. L. , Singer , H. P. , & Hollender , J. ( 2013 ). Automatic recalibration and processing of tandem mass spectra using formula annotation . Journal of Mass Spectrometry , 48 ( 1 ), 89 - 99 . doi: 10 .1002/jms.3131.
Teleman , J. , Dowsey , A. W. , Gonzalez-Galarza , F. F. , Perkins , S. , Pratt , B. , Ro¨st, H. L. , et al. ( 2014 ). Numerical compression schemes for proteomics mass spectrometry data . Molecular and Cellular Proteomics , 13 ( 6 ), 1537 - 1542 . doi: 10 .1074/mcp. O114 . 037879.
Vizcano , J. A. , Deutsch , E. W. , Wang , R. , Csordas , A. , Reisinger , F. , Ro´s, D. , et al. ( 2014 ). ProteomeXchange provides globally coordinated proteomics data submission and dissemination . Nature Biotechnology , 32 ( 3 ), 223 - 226 . doi: 10 .1038/nbt.2839.
Wilhelm , M. , Kirchner , M. , Steen , J. A. J. & Steen , H. ( 2012 ). mz5: Space- and time-efficient storage of mass spectrometry data sets . Molecular Cell Proteomics , 11 ( 1 ), O111.011379. doi:10.1074/ mcp.O111 .011379.