LCI data and data quality

Life cycle inventory (LCI) is becoming an established environmental management tool that quantifies all resource usage and waste generation associated with providing specific goods or services to society. LCIs are increasingly used by industry as well as policy makers to provide a holistic ‘macro’ overview of the environmental profile of a good or service. This information, effectively combined with relevant information obtained from other environmental management tools, is very useful in guiding strategic environmental decision making. LCIs are very data intensive. There is a risk that they imply a level of accuracy that does not exist. This is especially true today, because the availability of accurate LCI data is limited. Also, it is not easy for LCI users, decision-makers and other interested parties to differentiate between ‘good quality’ and ‘poor quality’ LCI data. Several data quality requirements for ‘good’ LCI data can be defined only in relation to the specific study in which they are used. In this paper we show how and why the use of a common LCI database for some of the more commonly used LCI data, together with increased documentation and harmonisation of the data quality features of all LCI data, is key to the further development of LCI as a useful and pragmatic environmental management tool. Initiatives already underway to make this happen are also described.     

Linking data to models: data regression

Mathematical models are an essential tool in systems biology, linking the behaviour of a system to the interactions between its components. Parameters in empirical mathematical models must be determined using experimental data, a process called regression. Because experimental data are noisy and incomplete, diagnostics that test the structural identifiability and validity of models and the significance and determinability of their parameters are needed to ensure that the proposed models are supported by the available data.     

Maintaining data integrity in microarray data management

Gene expression microarrays are a relatively new technology, dating back just a few years, yet they have already become a very widely used tool in biology, and have evolved to a wide range of applications well beyond their original design intent. However, while the use of microarrays has expanded, and the issues of performance optimization have been intensively studied, the fundamental issue of data integrity management has largely been ignored. Now that performance has improved so greatly, the shortcomings of data integrity control methods constitute a greater percent of the stumbling blocks for investigators. Microarray data are cumbersome, and the rule up to this point has mostly been one of hands-on transformations, leading to human errors which often have dramatic consequences. We show in this review that the time lost on such mistakes is enormous and dramatically affects results; therefore, mistakes should be mitigated in any way possible. We outline the scope of the data integrity issue, to survey some of the most common and dangerous data transformations, and their shortcomings. To illustrate, we review some case studies. We then look at the work done by the research community on this issue (which admittedly is meager up to this point). Some data integrity issues are always going to be difficult, while others will become easier-one of our goals is to expedite the use of integrity control methods. Finally, we present some preliminary guidelines and some specific approaches that we believe should be the focus of future research.     

Taming data

A challenge in systems-level investigations of the immune response is the principled integration of disparate data sets for constructing predictive models. InnateDB (Lynn et al., 2008; http://www.innatedb.ca), a publicly available, manually curated database of experimentally verified molecular interactions and pathways involved in innate immunity, is a powerful new resource that facilitates such integrative systems-level analyses.     

Proteomics data validation: why all must provide data

The field of proteomics has gained considerable momentum over the last years as new technologies and better instrumentation allowed the field to mature from what resembled a cottage industry into a high-throughput means to identify, characterize and quantify hundreds of proteins. The identifications and (relative) quantitation values obtained are often controversial however, as various techniques and different software platforms are used in the many laboratories worldwide. This Opinion attempts to shed some light on some of the underlying issues, and proposes certain guidelines authors can adhere to in order to allow others to validate their findings.     

Effective integration of protein data through better data modeling

Protein data, from sequence and structure to interaction, is being generated through many diverse methodologies; it is stored and reported in numerous forms and multiple places. The magnitude of the data limits researchers abilities to utilize all information generated. Effective integration of protein data can be accomplished through better data modeling. We demonstrate this through the MIPD project.     

Stability of exploratory multivariate data modeling in longitudinal data

Exploratory data-driven multivariate analysis provides a means of investigating underlying structure in complex data. To explore the stability of multivariate data modeling, we have applied a common method of multivariate modeling (factor analysis) to the Genetic Analysis Workshop 13 (GAW13) Framingham Heart Study data. Given the longitudinal nature of the data, multivariate models were generated independently for a number of different time points (corresponding to cross-sectional clinic visits for the two cohorts), and compared. In addition, each multivariate model was used to generate factor scores, which were then used as a quantitative trait in variance component-based linkage analysis to investigate the stability of linkage signals over time. We found surprisingly good correlation between factor models (i.e., predicted factor structures), maximum LOD scores, and locations of maximum LOD scores (0.81< rho <0.94 for factor scores; rho >0.99 for peak locations; and 0.67< rho <0.93 for peak LOD scores). Furthermore, the regions implicated by linkage analysis with these factor scores have also been observed in other studies, further validating our exploratory modeling.     

Balancing data sharing requirements for analyses with data sensitivity

Data sensitivity can pose a formidable barrier to data sharing. Knowledge of species current distributions from data sharing is critical for the creation of watch lists and an early warning/rapid response system and for model generation for the spread of invasive species. We have created an on-line system to synthesize disparate datasets of non-native species locations that includes a mechanism to account for data sensitivity. Data contributors are able to mark their data as sensitive. This data is then ‘fuzzed’ in mapping applications and downloaded files to quarter-quadrangle grid cells, but the actual locations are available for analyses. We propose that this system overcomes the hurdles to data sharing posed by sensitive data.     

Analysis of multilocus fingerprinting data sets containing missing data

Missing data are commonly encountered using multilocus, fragment‐based (dominant) fingerprinting methods, such as random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) or amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP). Data sets containing missing data have been analysed by eliminating those bands or samples with missing data, assigning values to missing data or ignoring the problem. Here, we present a method that uses random assignments of band presence–absence to the missing data, implemented by the computer program famd (available from http://homepage.univie.ac.at/philipp.maria.schlueter/famd.html ), for analyses based on pairwise similarity and Shannon's index. When missing values group in a data set, sample or band elimination is likely to be the most appropriate action. However, when missing values are scattered across the data set, minimum, maximum and average similarity coefficients are a simple means of visualizing the effects of missing data on tree structure. Our approach indicates the range of values that a data set containing missing data points might generate, and forces the investigator to consider the effects of missing values on data interpretation.