Citation for one DataPaper item doesn't show publisher in DOI Fabrica

[kjgarza]

potentially related to datacite/bolognese#36

Front conversations

[kjgarza]

test in : https://github.com/datacite/lupo/pull/134

[kjgarza]

Citeproc-ruby might not able to convert the citation for datapaper

[mfenner]

Please look into the citation styles loaded by the respective services. The ones in Lupo are a few months more recent.

Also, I am not sure bolognese (and thus the citeproc JSON we generate) understands datapaper.

[kjgarza]

well bolognese is able to format datapaper correctly (or with the publisher). It works everywhere (CN, Search, citation formatter), with exception of lupo /{doi}?style=**. I'll check sources anyway.

[mfenner]

Citeproc JS in DOI Fabrica:

{
  "type": "article-journal",
  "id": "https://doi.org/10.17912/g434-3d85",
  "author": [
    {
      "family": "Bayer",
      "given": "Emily A."
    },
    {
      "family": "Hobert",
      "given": "Oliver"
    }
  ],
  "issued": {
    "date-parts": [
      [
        2018
      ]
    ]
  },
  "abstract": "We have generated a novel null allele, ot900, of the C. elegans LIM homeodomain gene ceh-14. All existing deletion alleles of ceh-14 were generated using a Tc1 transposon insertion, one of which, ch3, is a putative null based on the resulting frame-shift and a reduction in detectable mRNA and protein levels (Cassata et al. 2000). However, in our hands we have noticed a propensity of the ch3 allele to revert to wild-type after several generations, perhaps due to a more complex rearrangement of the locus caused by the Tc1 transposon than previously appreciated. \n\nTo avoid potential complexities of working with the ch3 allele, we used CRISPR/Cas9 to generate a new null allele of ceh-14. The ot900 allele was isolated with gRNAs targeted to the first and last exons of ceh-14 (gRNA #1: CTTGGCGAGTGCGATGAGC, gRNA #2: GTACTGTGGAGTCATGTGT; see Fig. 1), and then PCR screening for resulting large deletion alleles. Our primers for PCR genotyping of the deletion are 5’-CTCAACTAAATCGTCAGAATCGTC-3’ and 5’-GAGATGTATGAAACGAGCGAGCG-3’ which generate a 620bp product in the context of the ot900 deletion. The ceh-14 locus in the ot900 allele is only capable of generating an 11aa peptide due to the remaining bases in the first exon, before reaching a premature stop codon (Fig 1B).\n\nPrevious studies have implicated ceh-14 in differentiation and function of the phasmid neurons, but have shown incomplete penetrance and variability in phenotypes resulting from the ceh-14 (ch3) allele (Kagoshima et al. 2013, Serrano-Saiz et al. 2015). We used the srg-13 marker of PHA identity (which was expressed in 20/20 wild-type animals) to assess whether phasmid neuron differentiation is more severely affected in ot900 than ch3, and found that this marker was indeed lost in 100% of animals (expressed in 0/15 animals), despite not finding an appreciable effect in ceh-14 (ch3) (expressed in 15/15 animals). This suggests that some of the variability in phenotype may be the result of the ch3 allele itself, rather than a property of CEH-14 function.",
  "DOI": "10.17912/G434-3D85",
  "publisher": "microPublication Biology",
  "title": "A novel null allele of C. elegans gene ceh-14"
}

In content negotiation:

{
"type": "article",
"id": "https://doi.org/10.17912/g434-3d85",
"author": [
{
"family": "Bayer",
"given": "Emily A."
},
{
"family": "Hobert",
"given": "Oliver"
}
],
"issued": {
"date-parts": [
[
2018
]
]
},
"abstract": "We have generated a novel null allele, ot900, of the C. elegans LIM homeodomain gene ceh-14. All existing deletion alleles of ceh-14 were generated using a Tc1 transposon insertion, one of which, ch3, is a putative null based on the resulting frame-shift and a reduction in detectable mRNA and protein levels (Cassata et al. 2000). However, in our hands we have noticed a propensity of the ch3 allele to revert to wild-type after several generations, perhaps due to a more complex rearrangement of the locus caused by the Tc1 transposon than previously appreciated. \n\nTo avoid potential complexities of working with the ch3 allele, we used CRISPR/Cas9 to generate a new null allele of ceh-14. The ot900 allele was isolated with gRNAs targeted to the first and last exons of ceh-14 (gRNA #1: CTTGGCGAGTGCGATGAGC, gRNA #2: GTACTGTGGAGTCATGTGT; see Fig. 1), and then PCR screening for resulting large deletion alleles. Our primers for PCR genotyping of the deletion are 5’-CTCAACTAAATCGTCAGAATCGTC-3’ and 5’-GAGATGTATGAAACGAGCGAGCG-3’ which generate a 620bp product in the context of the ot900 deletion. The ceh-14 locus in the ot900 allele is only capable of generating an 11aa peptide due to the remaining bases in the first exon, before reaching a premature stop codon (Fig 1B).\n\nPrevious studies have implicated ceh-14 in differentiation and function of the phasmid neurons, but have shown incomplete penetrance and variability in phenotypes resulting from the ceh-14 (ch3) allele (Kagoshima et al. 2013, Serrano-Saiz et al. 2015). We used the srg-13 marker of PHA identity (which was expressed in 20/20 wild-type animals) to assess whether phasmid neuron differentiation is more severely affected in ot900 than ch3, and found that this marker was indeed lost in 100% of animals (expressed in 0/15 animals), despite not finding an appreciable effect in ceh-14 (ch3) (expressed in 15/15 animals). This suggests that some of the variability in phenotype may be the result of the ch3 allele itself, rather than a property of CEH-14 function.",
"DOI": "10.17912/g434-3d85",
"publisher": "microPublication Biology",
"title": "A novel null allele of C. elegans gene ceh-14"
}

[mfenner]

Meaning you have two differences already: different citeproc processor, and different citeproc type. My guess is also that it is the citeproc processor, but I am not sure what we should see, based on the style and citeproc type. Is this about APA style or other styles? Here is the APA style: https://github.com/citation-style-language/styles/blob/master/apa.csl