37 Matching Annotations
  1. Jul 2019
    1. Note that mentions tagged by “Incorrect” and“InsufficientMetaData” are deemed not legitimate and it is desirable that RDW andRRID-by-RDW not identify them.

      but there's no way any analysis restricted to the article text will ID this, because you have to resolve the RRID to figure that out, right?

    2. Papers containing SCR RRID

      Why would papers have a higher percentage of SCR RRIDs? Where are the other RRIDs found?

    3. Summary and Conclusions

      the conclusion is in the paragraphs above titled comparison. Perhaps this para should be titled "future directions" or something?

    4. The Use of RRIDs vs Data Citation

      This section seems like it should be in the introduction.

    5. corpi

      correct plural is corpora

    6. where authors did not report an RRID forthe resource that they used, constituting 37% of all RRID mentions identified by SciBot

      Ok so Scibot is identifying digital resources from a list & flagging when there's no RRID but there probably should be?

    7. RDW recognized mentions of digital resource names, RRIDs or URLs from a total of701110 articles

      There are 190000 RRIDs in 13000 articles. RDW found RRIDs (doesn't say how many) in 701110/(2341133+738910+72493+151784=3304320) articles. So there are resources mentioned in about 21% of articles, based on extraction, but presuming all of the 13000 RRID containing articles were included in the 3 million, the RRID prevalence is closer to 6%, but RRIDs mentioning digital resources are 26748 or .8%. So 4/5 of articles don't mention digital resources at all?

    Tags

    Annotators

  2. Oct 2018
    1. Nature Research supports the Resource Identification Initiative, with the aim of promoting unique, persistent identification and tracking of key biological resources, including antibodies, cell lines, model organisms and tools.   We encourage authors to include unique identifiers provided by the Resource Identification Portal, (RRIDs; for example, Antibody: RRID:AB_2140114; Organism: RRID:MGI_MGI:3840442), in the manuscript.  More information on how to include listed RRIDs or generate new RRIDs can be found on the Resource Identification Portal.

      So great that Nature supports the use of RRIDs in journals!

  3. Jan 2018
    1. Kathy and Carl,

      This is a test. I am attending the NISO webinar about annotating documents. I am testing use os hypothes.is (an open source tool.)

      During this webinar the subject of RRID's came up (which is new to me.)

      Can you read this document where I have highlighted the information in RRID - another site says

      "The Resource Identifiers (RRIDs) are in the published literature; publications currently reporting RRIDs can be found in Google Scholar PubMed Central or PubMed. "

      Source:https://www.force11.org/group/resource-identification-initiative

      Do you search on RRID's? Do you teach this?

      Can you see this article (without you having to create an account?)

      Kim

  4. Nov 2017
  5. Sep 2017
  6. Jan 2017
    1. We used a mouse line expressing EGFP under the control of the 5Htr3aR-promoter (5HT3aR-BACEGFP ) provided by the GENSAT project at Rockefeller University.

      Should insert an RRID here.

  7. Nov 2016
  8. Aug 2016
    1. These differences between lots and the possibility that the lot that we used was subject to precipitation during the experiment raises the possibility that the differences between our results and those of Erschbamer et al. are due to differences between lots of PD168393. For example, it is possible that the compound precipitated somewhat in our experiments, perhaps clogging the intra-spinal cannulae whereas the lot used by Erschbamer did not precipitate. Erschbamer et al. do not indicate the lot number for the PD168393 that they used in their paper, but subsequent discussions reveal that the lot number for the original study was B61311. According to the manufacturer, the differences in the numbering indicate that lot B61311 and D00069257 were synthesized at different times, whereas lot D00069257 and D00078517 were synthesized at the same time but packaged at different times. Unfortunately, the company has been unable or unwilling to provide material from previous batches, so it has not been possible to carry out direct head-to-head comparisons between different lots.

      Importance of providing more complete descriptions of reagents used.

  9. May 2016
    1. Publishers are also getting involved: around a dozen journals this year began asking their authors to use unique identifiers for their reagents as part of a push by the Resource Identification Initiative.

      Resource Identification Initiative gets mentioned in the science events that shaped 2015.

  10. Mar 2016
    1. Many large data providers in life sciences did not adapt LSIDs, probably because it meant too many changes to their architecture. Thus the exposure, knowledge and skills around LSIDs did not propagate to the masses.

      When we were designing the Resource Identification Initiative, we deliberately made sure that we didn't overload the requirements with technology. See report of pilot project as well.

  11. Dec 2015
  12. Sep 2015
    1. It was transferred to Boehringer-Mannheim as Clone 12H11, resold to Roche and finally bought by Chemicon, and it is now sold as MAB3026.
  13. Jul 2015
    1. It is clear from the use of ES2 and RMG-II cell lines that the Atlas Antibodies ARID1A antibody is specific for ARID1A in both Western blots and formalin-fixed paraffin embedded preparations of human origin and, coupled with the literature evidence, that it is validated in human tissue.

      Validation statement RRID:AB_1078205 Summary

    2. A No Primary antibody control (NPA) showed no staining in the epithelial or nuclear compartment (Figure 3B; Dataset e).

      Validation statement RRID:AB_1078205 No primary control

    3. There was no cytoplasmic or extracellular stromal background staining present and the antibody titrated successfully losing the intensity of staining, as expected

      Validation statement RRID:AB_1078205 Titration curve

    4. Control slides, omitting the primary antibody, were negative except for the ER2 condition in the RMG-II cell pellet where a weak cytoplasmic background could be seen (Figure 2; Dataset d). Thus there was minimal background inherent in the staining procedure. It was therefore determined that the antibody showed specificity for formalin-fixed paraffin embedded tissues and could be run on murine tissue.

      Omission of primary antibody

      Validation statement RRID:AB_1078205

    5. It could be demonstrated that the HPA ARID1A antibody showed positive expression in ES-2 cell lines at the expected size of 270 kDa and no staining for RMG-II.

      Validation statement for RRID:AB_1078205

  14. Jun 2015
    1. mouse p-p44/42

      This antibody may have RRID:AB_627545 but information may not be accurate as insufficient metadata was provided.

    2. mouse SphK1

      This antibody may have RRID:AB_2271047 but information may not be accurate as insufficient metadata was provided.

  15. Apr 2015
    1. NF-κB p65 subunit from Abcam (ab7970

      This antibody has RRID:AB_306184

      This antibody did not appear to be included in the specificity tests on nf-kb antibodies by Herkenham et al. (2011) doi:10.1186/1742-2094-8-141. and Slotta et al. 2014: doi:10.1369/0022155413515484

      However, given the widespread problems with nf-kb antibodies, one might be concerned.

    2. p65 from Chemicon (MAB 3026

      This antibody has RRID:AB_2178887.

      Flag: A concern about specificity of this antibody in brain has been noted in Herkenham et al. (2011) doi:10.1186/1742-2094-8-141.

      An issue with this antibody has been raised in Slotta et al. 2014: doi:10.1369/0022155413515484

  16. Mar 2015
    1. monoclonal pSer-536 clone 93H1

      This antibody has RRID:AB_331284

    2. NLS-RelA (monoclonal MAB 3026 clone 12H11, 1∶250; Millipore, Darmstadt, Germany

      This antibody has RRID:AB_2178887.

      Flag: A concern about specificity of this antibody in brain has been noted in Herkenham et al. (2011) doi:10.1186/1742-2094-8-141.

      An issue with this antibody has been raised in Slotta et al. 2014: doi:10.1369/0022155413515484