The five pillars of computational reproducibility: Bioinformatics and beyond

I've been working on a new project to follow-up our paper last year on the problems with pathway enrichment analysis. That article turned out to be a bleak and depressing look into how frequently used tools in genomics are misused. It is not an exaggeration to say that most articles showing some type of enrichment analysis are doing it wrong and no doubt this is severely impacting the literature.

However I think it isn't helpful to only focus on the negative aspects of bioinformatics and computational research. We also need to lead the way towards resolving these issues. The best way to do this is in my view is to provide step-by-step guides and tutorials for common routines. So this is what we are in the process of doing, making a protocol for pathway enrichment analysis that is "extremely reproducible". By this, I mean that the analysis could be reproduced independently in future with the minimum of fuss and time. As we were writing this we also recognised that the overall philosophy we devised had not really been generalised yet, and would probably be of interest for researchers doing things outside of genomics.

We drafted the infographic with the five pillars and sought feedback and contributions from our contacts. Then with the coauthors Pierre Poulain (Université Paris Cité) and Anusuiya Bora (my student at Deakin Uni) we elaborated the infographic into a review that gives the full picture of current best practices in computational research. The preprint is online at OSF here. 

In the spirit of the content of the review, the document itself is a reproducible R Markdown document, able to be executed using a R docker image, with the code living on github version control here along with helpful documentation courtesy of a detailed README.

If you have feedback on the preprint, feel free to raise an issue on GitHub. It is appreciated. 

Thanks to Dr Aziz Khan (Stanford University), Dr Sriganesh Srihari (QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute), Dr Barbara Zdrazil (EMBL-EBI) and Dr Irene López Santiago (EMBL-EBI) for comment on the five pillars idea. Special thanks to Dr Altuna Akalin (Max Delbrück Center, Germany), Dr Simon Tournier (Paris Cité University, France), Dr Samuel S. Minot (Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center) and  Dr Martin O’Hely (Deakin University) for feedback, comments and advice.


Location: Laverton VIC 3028, Australia

Popular posts from this blog

Data analysis step 8: Pathway analysis with GSEA

Image
In our RNA-seq series so far we've performed differential analysis and generated some pretty graphs, showing thousands of differentially expressed genes after azacitidine treatment. In order to understand the biology underlying the differential gene expression profile, we need to perform pathway analysis. We use Gene Set Enrichment Analysis ( GSEA ) because it can detect pathway changes more sensitively and robustly than some methods. A 2013 paper compared a bunch of gene set analyses software with microarrays and is worth a look. Generate a rank file The rank file is a list of detected genes and a rank metric score. At the top of the list are genes with the "strongest" up-regulation, at the bottom of the list are the genes with the "strongest" down-regulation and the genes not changing are in the middle. The metric score I like to use is the sign of the fold change multiplied by the inverse of the p-value, although there may be better methods out there
Read more

Two subtle problems with over-representation analysis

Image
Over-representation analysis is a helpful and really frequently used technique for understanding trends from omics data and gene lists more generally. Just to demonstrate this, I tabulated the number of citations of some of the most popular web tools and packages, which reaches a massive 191k citations! But if you have used some of these tools, you will notice that they yield subtly different results. We were curiuous about that and ran a whole bunch of investigations into the internal workings of these tools, in particular clusterProfiler. We identified two subtle problems with clusterProfiler, which we unpack in detail in our new publication , but here I will give you a quick overview. Problem #1: The background problem The first one we call the “background problem,” because it involves the software eliminating large numbers of genes from the background list if they are not annotated as belonging to any category. This results in removing a large number of unannotated genes from the b
Read more

Uploading data to GEO - which method is faster?

If you have had to upload omics data to GEO before, you'll know it's a bit of a hassle and takes a long time. There are a few methods suggested by the GEO team if you are using the Unix command line: Using 'ncftp' ncftp set passive on set so-bufsize 33554432 open  ftp://geoftp:yourpasscode@ftp-private.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov cd uploads/your @mail.com_ yourfolder put -R Folder_with_submission_files Using 'lftp' lftp  ftp://geoftp:yourpasscode@ftp-private.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov cd uploads/ your @mail.com _ yourfolder mirror -R Folder_with_submission_files Using 'sftp' (expect slower transfer speeds since this method encrypts on-the-fly) sftp  geoftp @s ftp-private.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov password: yourpasscode cd uploads/ your @mail.com _ yourfolder mkdir new_geo_submission cd new_geo_submission put file_name Using 'ncftpput' (transfers from the command-line without entering an interactive shell) Usage example: ncftpput -F -R -z -u  geoftp  -p "yourpasscode"
Read more