Open AccessGene name errors: Lessons not learned
Author(s) -
Mandhri Abeysooriya,
Megan Soria,
Mary Sravya Kasu,
Mark Ziemann
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
plos computational biology/plos computational biology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.628
H-Index - 182
eISSN - 1553-7358
pISSN - 1553-734X
DOI - 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008984
Subject(s) - gene nomenclature , computer science , point (geometry) , gene prediction , gene , software , computational biology , data mining , bioinformatics , biology , genetics , genome , programming language , mathematics , taxonomy (biology) , botany , geometry , nomenclature
Erroneous conversion of gene names into other dates and other data types has been a frustration for computational biologists for years. We hypothesized that such errors in supplementary files might diminish after a report in 2016 highlighting the extent of the problem. To assess this, we performed a scan of supplementary files published in PubMed Central from 2014 to 2020. Overall, gene name errors continued to accumulate unabated in the period after 2016. An improved scanning software we developed identified gene name errors in 30.9% (3,436/11,117) of articles with supplementary Excel gene lists; a figure significantly higher than previously estimated. This is due to gene names being converted not just to dates and floating-point numbers, but also to internal date format (five-digit numbers). These findings further reinforce that spreadsheets are ill-suited to use with large genomic data.