Thoughts on the supply of bioinformatics services and training in the UK

I am currently at the 2014 UK Genome Sciences meeting (hashtag #UKGS2014). It has been a long time since I have been at a UK science conference and it has been good to meet old colleagues and acquaintances who I have known from various stages of my career.

From informal chats with various people, it seems that UK universities are tackling their bioinformatics needs in different ways. Some have specialized facilities that try to meet the bioinformatics need from local users (and potentially from those further afield). E.g. the University of Surrey has a Bioinformatics Core Facility, Newcastle University has a Bioinformatics Support Unit, and here at Oxford there is the Computational Biology Research Group.

These examples represent core facilities with dedicated staff. An alternative approach is to bring together — physically or virtually — existing bioinformatics talent, with a view that they will be able to help others. This is the strategy taken by the new Bioinformatics Hub at the University of Sheffield, which brings together six talented folk who are based in different departments. The success of strategies like this may heavily depend on having enough skilled bioinformatics faculty who also have enough time to help others.

Other universities seem to lack any central pooling of bioinformatics expertise, and instead rely on people doing bioinformatics themselves or outsourcing it to places like TGAC. The former approach (doing it yourself) will be fine for some people, particularly those who are comfortable learning new computational skills themselves, but this will not be a good fit for everyone. 

If you are not outsourcing your bioinformatics and you don't have the necessary skills yourself, then the other approach is to attend one or more training courses. Three places that seem to be leading the field for bioinformatics training are TGAC, CGAT, and Edinburgh Genomics…and all three have a heavy presence at this conference.

Depending on your definition, bioinformatics has been around — as either a recognized skill set, or a field of study — since the early 1990s. The number of people who might consider themselves a bioinformatician has probably grown exponentially since then. Likewise, the demand for skilled bioinformaticians, or for facilities that offer bioinformatics services and training, continues to grow. Clearly, there are different ways of meeting this demand.

The current diversity of approaches to bioinformatics services and training presumably is a reflection on the local supply of, and demand for, such services. If you are about to join a new university, and if you plan on needing some bioinformatics help at some point, it may be useful to first find out more about that university's bioinformatics strategy.

My poster for the UK Genome Sciences meeting is about a new version of our IMEter software

One of the many projects I am involved with looks at Intron-mediated enhancement (IME) of gene expression. Our collaboration with Alan Rose at UC Davis has been a fruitful one, and has led to the development of computational tools that can predict how much an intron might enhance expression.

The initial version of what we called 'the IMEter' was published in 2008 and an improved v2.0 version was published in 2011. The online version of this software only lets you test Arabidopsis introns…not so useful when there are now so many different sequenced plant genomes.

We addressed this limitation in a new — as yet unpublished — v2.1 version which is available online. IMEter v2.1 can now test the expression enhancing ability of introns from 34 different plant species.

The new IMEter is the subject of my poster at the forthcoming UK Genome Sciences meeting in Oxford. The poster, available below via Figshare, explains a little more about how the new version of the IMEter came about. It also discusses some of the problems that arise in trying to adapt a software tool from working with one, very well annotated, genome, to working with many different genomes of varying quality.

5 things to consider when publishing links to academic websites

Preamble

One of the reasons I've been somewhat quiet on this blog recently is because I've been involved with a big push to finish the new Genome Center website. This has been in development for a long time and provides a much needed update to the previous website that was really showing its age. Compare and contrast:

The old Genome Center website…what's with all that whitespace in the middle?

The new Genome Center website, less than 24 hours old at the time of writing.

This type of redesign is a once-in-a-decade event, and provides the opportunity not just to add new features (e.g. proper RSS news feed, twitter account, YouTube channel, respsonvive website design etc.), but also to clean up a lot of legacy material (e.g. webpages for people who left the Genome Center many years ago).

This cleanup prompted me to check Google Scholar to see if there are any published papers that include links to Genome Center websites. This includes links to the main site and also to all of the many subdomains that exist (for different labs, core facilities etc.) It's pretty easy to search Google Scholar for the core part of a URL, e.g. genomecenter.ucdavis.edu and I would encourage anyone else that is looking after an aging academic website to do so.

Here are some of the key things that I noticed:

  1. Most mentions of Genome Center URLs are to resources by Peggy Farnham's lab. Although Peggy left UC Davis several years ago (she is now here), her — very old, and out of date — lab page still exists (http://farnham.genomecenter.ucdavis.edu).
  2. Many people link to Craig Benham's work using http://genomecenter.ucdavis.edu/benham/. This redirects to Craig's own lab site (http://benham.genomecenter.ucdavis.edu), but the redirect doesn't quite work when people have linked to a specific tool (e.g. http://genomecenter.ucdavis.edu/benham/sidd). This redirects to http://benham.genomecenter.ucdavis.edu/sidd which then produces a 404 error (page not found).
  3. There are many papers that link to resources from Jonathan Eisen's group and these papers all point to various pages on a domain that is either down or no longer in existence (http://bobcat.genomecenter.ucdavis.edu).

There is an issue here of just how long is it valid to try to keep links active and working. In the case of Peggy Farnham, she no longer works at UC Davis, so is it okay if I redirected all of her web traffic to her new website? I plan to do this but will let Peggy know so that she can maybe arrange to copy some of the existing material over to her new site.

In the case of Craig's lab, maybe he should be adding his own redirect links for tools that now have new URLs. What would also help would be to have a dedicated 404 page which might point to the likely target page that people are looking for (a completely blank 'not found' page is rarely ever helpful).

In the case of Jonathan's lab, there is a big problem here in that all of the papers are tied to a very specific domain name (which itself has no obvious naming connection to his lab). You can always rename a new machine to be called 'bobcat', but maybe there are better things we should be doing to avoid these situations arising in the first place…

5 things to consider when publishing links to academic websites

  1. Don't do it! Use resources like Figshare, Github, or Dryad if at all possible. Of course this might not be possible if you are publishing some sort of online software tool.
  2. If you have to link to a lab webpage, consider spending $10 a year or so and buying your own domain name that you can take with you if you ever move anywhere else in future. I bought http://korflab.com for my boss, and I see that Peggy Farnham is now using http://farnhamlab.com.
  3. If you can't, or don't want to, buy your own domain name, try using a generic lab domain name and not a machine-specific domain name. E.g. our lab's website is on a machine called 'raiden' and can be accessed at http://raiden.genomecenter.ucdavis.edu. But we only ever use the domain name http://korflab.ucdavis.edu which allows us to use a different machine as the server without breaking any links.
  4. If you must link to a specific machine, try avoiding URLs that get too complex. E.g. http://supersciencelab.ucdavis.edu/Tools/Foo/v1/foo_v1.cgi. The more complex the URL, the more likely it will break in future. Instead, link to your top level domain (http://supersciencelab.ucdavis.edu) and provide clear links on that page on how to find things.
  5. Any time you publish a link to a URL, make sure you keep a record of this in a simple text file somewhere. This might really help if/when you decide to redesign your website 5 years from now and want to know whether you might be breaking any pre-existing links.

 

Random capitalization strikes again, or am I only dreaming?

A paper in BMC Bioinformatics describes a new piece of software:

morFeus: a web-based program to detect remotely conserved orthologs using symmetrical best hits and orthology network scoring

Naturally, my first instincts were to check whether this was a name worthy of a JABBA award, but morFeus does not appear to be an acronym or initialism. I say that because although the name morFeus appears 116 times in the manuscript, no explanation is ever given as to why the software has that name.

My first thought was that maybe it is a reference to Morpheus, the Greek god of dreams, or maybe to the character of Morpheus from The Matrix. I don't really care about why it is called morFeus — a name that my spell checker keeps correcting to morgues — but it is another example of the, seemingly random, capitalization of bioinformatics tools.

When I visited the web server for the morFeus tool, I did notice something in small print at the bottom of the page:

  • morFeus stands for meta-analysis based orthology finder using symmetrical best hits

This is something that also appears as a keyword in the manuscript, but it is not entirely obvious as to whether this really is meant to be an initialism, or why the F is capitalized. I'm completely stuMped.