 |
|
Documenting Biospecimen Conditions in Reports of Studies—Reply
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
|
|
In Reply: We agree with Dr Robb and colleagues that well-annotated data sets should have detailed information regarding their tissue banking methods and respective standard operating procedures available for others to examine and possibly follow. This is critical, and we examined multiple sources (institutions) of data to ascertain the reliability and nature of the samples. We support initiatives in promoting and centralizing such biobanking strategies.1 However, such initiatives are recent and, while important, should not preclude the analysis of already published data from reputable institutions, especially if they involve a formal communication regarding the quality of the data and biobanking procedures, as was the case in the data used in our article.
The GEO database requires the contributors to provide substantial metadata, including experiment protocol, extract protocol, hybridization protocol, and sample acquisition information. However, biobanking information is not normally made available in the GEO records. As mentioned by Robb et . . . [Full Text of this Article]
Chaitanya R. Acharya, MS;
Anil Potti, MD
anil.potti@duke.edu
Institute for Genome Sciences and Policy
Duke University Medical Center
Durham, North Carolina
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter
What's this?
RELATED ARTICLE
Centralized Biorepositories for Genetic and Genomic Research
Geoffrey S. Ginsburg, Thomas W. Burke, and Phillip Febbo
JAMA. 2008;299(11):1359-1361.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
RELATED LETTER
Documenting Biospecimen Conditions in Reports of Studies
James A. Robb, Helen M. Moore, and Carolyn C. Compton
JAMA. 2008;300(6):650-651.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
