Biocurator Society Planning Site

White paper for the International Society for Biocurators

Technological advances in the field of biology, including breakthroughs in genome-sequencing technology, microarray technology, high throughput structural biology, and improvements in mass-spectrometry, have led to an explosion of data that need to be stored, curated and analyzed. Many tools and databases that have been developed were started as a post-doctoral fellow or student's side project to assist their main research. From that, several Model Organism Databases (MODs) have emerged, including SGD, WormBase, MGI, RGD, FlyBase, ZFIN, TAIR, and dictyBase, among others. Other well-known databases focus on gene annotation, protein annotation or protein structure (GenBank, RefSeq, UniProtKB, PDB etc.). Additional databases are concerned with specific aspects of life sciences research, such as protein-protein interactions, pathways, regulation of gene expression, etc. Finally, some others cater to specific gene/protein families such as kinases, G-proteins, restriction enzymes, etc. Most databases and tools are publicly funded and those whose mission is not to act as archives or repositories have one essential common element: biocuration.

Biocuration involves the translation of information relevant to biology into an organized form, typically as a database, that enables integration of the scientific literature as well as large data sets, such that it is accurately represented and easy to access, as both a source of information for working scientists, and a basis for computational analysis.

The goals of biocuration are achieved thanks to the convergent endeavors of biocurators, software developers and researchers in bioinformatics. Biocurators provide essential resources to the biological community to the extent that there is probably no single scientist that has not used the fruits of their labor in the course of their daily work.

Curators of scientific data are highly educated and experienced scientists, usually with doctoral degrees, who themselves have published primary research in high quality peer-reviewed journals prior to moving into the biocuration field. They provide an essential work force to understand the biological implications of the data they are cataloging, annotating and analyzing. There are hundreds of full time curators in publicly funded projects. Recently, the Second International Biocurators Meeting was held in San Jose with great success: 150 participants presented 38 oral presentations and 60 posters.

It has become clear that the field needs a formal organization to facilitate communication between biocurators, software developers, bench scientists, and journal publishers. The higher visibility of biocuration to researchers and publishers will foster collaboration between these groups and will lead to higher productivity and better quality of published papers on one side, and of data represented in the databases on the other side. In addition, the increased sharing of tools and ideas among biocurators and associated developers will improve data capture, representation, and analysis. The recognition of biocuration as a respected career path will ensure the continued recruitment of highly qualified scientists to this field. This will benefit the larger world of biomedical sciences.

We propose to create an International Society for Biocurators. The mission of the Society will be to:

1. Help define the profession of biocuration with respect to the scientfic community and the granting agencies.
2. Provide a forum for biocurators, and interested developers, researchers, and students to exchange experience and ideas. The current website, biocurator.org, will be extended to provide user profiles, including databases, research interests, and curation expertise.
3. Organize an annual conference where biocurators present their work, and discuss their scholarly efforts.
4. Lobby to obtain increased and stable funding for resources that are essential to research.
5. Build a relationship with publishers and establish a link between researchers and databases through the journal publishers.
6. Organize an annual workshop where new biocurators, or interested students can be trained in the use of common tools such as the Gene Ontology, Genotype and Phenotype curation, GMOD tools, etc.
7. Provide documentation on the use of common database tools.
8. Provide 'Gold Standards' for databases, such as the use of unique, traceable identifiers, use of shared tools, etc.
9. Share documentation on standards, annotation procedures with the aim of developing Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs).
10. Foster connections with user communities to ensure that the databases and accompanying tools meet specific user needs.
11. Maintain a biocurator job market forum.

The Planning Committee

• Amos Baroich, PhD, SwissProt, SIB, Geneva, Switzerland
• Deborah Boswell, PhD, The Induced Mutant Resource, The Jackson Laboratory, Bar Harbor, ME, USA
• Lydie Bougueleret, PhD, SwissProt, SIB, Geneva, Switzerland
• Rex Chisholm PhD., dictyBase, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA
• Maria Costanzo, PhD, SGD/CGD, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA
• Harold Drabkin, PhD, MGI, The Jackson Laboratory, Bar Harbor, ME, USA
• Shuchismita Dutta, PhD, RCSB PDB, Rutgers University, NJ, USA
• Petra Fey, dictyBase, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA
• Pascale Gaudet, PhD., dictyBase, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA
• Linda Hannick, PhD, J. Craig Venter Institute, Rockville, MD, USA
• Doug Howe, PhD, ZFIN, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, USA
• Michele Magrane, PhD, UniProt, EBI, Cambridge, UK
• Peter McQuilton, PhD, Flybase, Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK
• Renate Kania, PhD, EML Research gGmbH, Heidelberg, Germany
• Lydie Lane, PhD, SwissProt, SIB, Geneva, Switzerland
• Kim Pruitt, PhD, NCBI, Bethesda, MD, USA
• Wolfgang Resch, PhD, NCBI, Bethesda, MD, USA
• Lorna Richardson, PhD, EMAGE, Edinburgh, UK
• Monte Westerfield, PhD, ZFIN, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, USA