Cited by 230Genomics and Phylogenetic StudiesResearch Data Management PracticesScientific Computing and Data Management

Genomes OnLine database (GOLD) v.7: updates and new features

Open access
Mukherjee, Supratim, Stamatis, Dimitri, Bertsch, Jon, Ovchinnikova, Galina, Katta, Hema Y, Mojica, Alejandro, Chen, I-Min A, Kyrpides, Nikos C +1 more·2019·Nucleic Acids Research

Abstract

The Genomes Online Database (GOLD) (https://gold.jgi.doe.gov) is an open online resource, which maintains an up-to-date catalog of genome and metagenome projects in the context of a comprehensive list of associated metadata. Information in GOLD is organized into four levels: Study, Biosample/Organism, Sequencing Project and Analysis Project. Currently GOLD hosts information on 33 415 Studies, 49 826 Biosamples, 313 324 Organisms, 215 881 Sequencing Projects and 174 454 Analysis Projects with a total of 541 metadata fields, of which 80 are based on controlled vocabulary (CV) terms. GOLD provides a user-friendly web interface to browse sequencing projects and launch advanced search tools across four classification levels. Users submit metadata on a wide range of Sequencing and Analysis Projects in GOLD before depositing sequence data to the Integrated Microbial Genomes (IMG) system for analysis. GOLD conforms with and supports the rules set by the Genomic Standards Consortium (GSC) Minimum Information standards. The current version of GOLD (v.7) has seen the number of projects and associated metadata increase exponentially over the years. This paper provides an update on the current status of GOLD and highlights the new features added over the last two years.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/nar/gky977

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • MGnify curators add supplementary metadata to imported studies, assigning a relevant biome selected from GOLD biosample hierarchy.

    “The distinction between MGnify studies and ENA projects is important, as MGnify curators add supplementary metadata to imported studies, assigning a relevant biome selected from the Genomes OnLine Database (GOLD) (17) biosample hierarchy.”

    From MGnify: the microbiome analysis resource in 2020 (2019) · cites this paper as [17]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mukherjee, S., Stamatis, D., Bertsch, J., Ovchinnikova, G., Katta, H. Y., Mojica, A., Chen, I.-M. A., Kyrpides, N. C., & Reddy, T.
Affiliations
Joint Genome Institute (US)
Corresponding author
  • Kyrpides, Nikos C
  • Reddy, TBK
Venue
Nucleic Acids Research
Published
2018-10-24
Volume
47
Issue
D1
Pages
D649-D659
ISSN
  • 0305-1048 (ISSN-L)
  • 1362-4962
OpenAlex
W2898201023
Cited by
230
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 58 · 2020: 82 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 1 · 2015: 1
FWCI
15.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
public-domain
Locations
  • Nucleic Acids Research (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Department of Energy Joint Genome Institute (DE-AC02-05CH11231)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Research Data Management Practices
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Scientific Computing and Data Management
Keywords
genome projects, metadata catalog, controlled vocabulary, Genomic Standards Consortium, microbial genomics, online databases
MeSH terms
Software, Genomics, Databases, Genetic, Gene Ontology

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review