Replies: 1 comment 2 replies
-
Hi @eboileau , for me the relevance in the "Search" would be:
1 & 2 are currently in one field, but if e.g. tRNAs are included, one could think of separating these. I assume that in the "Search" field, most people will look for RNA modifications in one specific organism, whereas more than one organism may be relevant for "Compare" (e.g. shared m6A sites between mouse and human). It would be nice if it would be possible to filter further via the column headers (e.g. for a specific gene). Possible Bug: I tested the "Export" function in the Search, and it seems that currently only the displayed page is exported. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Background
We'd prefer not to restrict too much the search, but on the other hand, sending back thousands of records across different dataset (different modifications, techniques, species, etc) may be too much information anyway.
What we currently do
Currently, we allow in principle to select, among available data, (1) one, more, or all modifications (or RNA type), (2) one, more, or all techniques, and (3) one, more, or all organisms, in that order. See Search.
Pros: You can find site-specific modifications across organisms, techniques, w/o restrictions.
Cons: Large data, longer query time, not sustainable for the future in that format
What others do
Other databases allow to first select species, then cell or tissue, but display data for one organism at a time, and do not allow to filter based on the technique used (e.g. eTAM-seq, GLORI, etc).
Your feedback
How do you want to search the database? What is intuitive for you?
Suggested answers:
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions