ReproPhylo: An Environment for Reproducible Phylogenomics

PLoS Computational Biology

Volumn 11, Issue 9, 2015, Pages

  Szitenberg, Amir ^a   John, Max ^a   Blaxter, Mark L ^b   Lunt, David H ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HULL   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HIGH LEVEL LANGUAGES;

CONTROL PROGRAM; ENVIRONMENT INFORMATION; HUMAN-READABLE; LARGE SCALE DATA; PHYLOGENOMICS; PLATFORM INDEPENDENT; REPRODUCIBILITIES; USER INTERVENTION; VERSION CONTROL; WORK-FLOWS;

PYTHON;

ARTICLE; BIOINFORMATICS; COMPUTER INTERFACE; COMPUTER PROGRAM; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DATA ANALYSIS; GENOME ANALYSIS; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MOLECULAR PHYLOGENY; PHYLOGENOMICS; PROCESS DESIGN; REPRODUCIBILITY; REPROPHYLO; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; GENOMICS; PHYLOGENY; PROCEDURES; SEQUENCE ALIGNMENT; SOFTWARE;

GENOMICS; MODELS, GENETIC; PHYLOGENY; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SEQUENCE ALIGNMENT; SOFTWARE;

EID: 84943548873     PISSN: 1553734X     EISSN: 15537358     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004447     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. McNutt M, Journals unite for reproducibility. Science. 2014;346: 679. 25383411
2. Begley CG, Ioannidis JPA, Reproducibility in science improving the standard for basic and preclinical research. Circ Res. 2015;116: 116–126. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.114.303819 25552691
3. Eales JM, Pinney JW, Stevens RD, Robertson DL, Methodology capture: discriminating between the “best” and the rest of community practice. BMC Bioinformatics. 2008;9: 359. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-9-359 18761740
4. Penny D, The comparative method in evolutionary biology. J Classification. 1992;9: 169–172.
5. Whitney KD, Baack EJ, Hamrick JL, Godt MJW, Barringer BC, Bennett MD, et al. A role for nonadaptive processes in plant genome size evolution? Evolution. 2010;64: 2097–2109. doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2010.00967.x 20148953
6. Ågren JA, Wang W, Koenig D, Neuffer B, Weigel D, Wright SI, Mating system shifts and transposable element evolution in the plant genus Capsella. BMC Genomics. 2014;15: 602. doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-15-602 25030755
7. Magee AF, May MR, Moore BR, The dawn of open access to phylogenetic data. PLoS ONE. 2014;9: e110268. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0110268 25343725
8. Vines TH, Albert AYK, Andrew RL, Débarre F, Bock DG, Franklin MT, et al. The availability of research data declines rapidly with article age. Curr Biol. 2014;24: 94–97. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2013.11.014 24361065
9. Cranston K, Harmon LJ, O’Leary MA, Lisle C, Best practices for data sharing in phylogenetic research. PLoS Curr. 2014;6.
10. Huerta-Cepas J, Bork P, Gabaldon T, ETE-NPR: A portable application for Nested Phylogenetic Reconstruction and workflow design http://etetoolkit.org/ete_npr/.
11. Pearse WD, Purvis A, phyloGenerator: an automated phylogeny generation tool for ecologists. Methods Ecol Evol. 2013;4: 692–698.
12. Grant JR, Katz LA, Building a phylogenomic pipeline for the eukaryotic tree of life—addressing deep phylogenies with genome-scale data. PLoS Curr. 2014;6.
13. Dunn CW, Howison M, Zapata F, Agalma: an automated phylogenomics workflow. BMC Bioinformatics. 2013;14: 330. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-14-330 24252138
14. Sánchez R, Serra F, Tárraga J, Medina I, Carbonell J, Pulido L, et al. Phylemon 2.0: a suite of web-tools for molecular evolution, phylogenetics, phylogenomics and hypotheses testing. Nucleic Acids Res. 2011;39: W470–4. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkr408 21646336
15. Dereeper A, Guignon V, Blanc G, Audic S, Buffet S, Chevenet F, et al. Phylogeny.fr: robust phylogenetic analysis for the non-specialist. Nucleic Acids Res. 2008;36: W465–9. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkn180 18424797
16. Miller MA, Wayne P, Terri S. Creating the CIPRES Science Gateway for inference of large phylogenetic trees. 2010 Gateway Computing Environments Workshop (GCE). 2010.
17. Oakley TH, Alexandrou MA, Ngo R, Pankey MS, Churchill CKC, Chen W, et al. Osiris: accessible and reproducible phylogenetic and phylogenomic analyses within the Galaxy workflow management system. BMC Bioinformatics. 2014;15: 230. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-15-230 24990571
18. Giardine B, Riemer C, Hardison RC, Burhans R, Elnitski L, Shah P, et al. Galaxy: A platform for interactive large-scale genome analysis. Genome Res. 2005;15: 1451–1455. 16169926
19. Blankenberg D, Kuster GV, Coraor N, Ananda G, Lazarus R, Mangan M, et al. Galaxy: A web-based genome analysis tool for experimentalists. Current Protocols in Molecular Biology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2001.
20. Goecks J, Nekrutenko A, Taylor J, Galaxy: a comprehensive approach for supporting accessible, reproducible, and transparent computational research in the life sciences. Genome Biol. 2010;11: R86. doi: 10.1186/gb-2010-11-8-r86 20738864
21. Cock PJA, Antao T, Chang JT, Chapman BA, Cox CJ, Dalke A, et al. Biopython: freely available Python tools for computational molecular biology and bioinformatics. Bioinformatics. 2009;25: 1422–1423. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp163 19304878
22. Pérez F, Granger BE, IPython: a system for interactive scientific computing. Comput Sci Eng. 2007;9: 21–29.
23. Knuth DE, Literate programming. Comput J. 1984;27: 97–111.
24. Huerta-Cepas J, Dopazo J, Gabaldón T, ETE: a python environment for tree exploration. BMC Bioinformatics. 2010;11: 24. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-11-24 20070885
25. Hunter JD, Matplotlib: A 2D graphics environment. Comput Sci Eng. 2007;9: 90–95.
26. Slater GSC, Birney E, Automated generation of heuristics for biological sequence comparison. BMC Bioinformatics. 2005;6: 31. 15713233
27. Katoh K, Standley DM, MAFFT multiple sequence alignment software version 7: improvements in performance and usability. Mol Biol Evol. 2013;30: 772–780. doi: 10.1093/molbev/mst010 23329690
28. Edgar RC, MUSCLE: multiple sequence alignment with high accuracy and high throughput. Nucleic Acids Res. 2004;32: 1792–1797. 15034147
29. Edgar RC, MUSCLE: a multiple sequence alignment method with reduced time and space complexity. BMC Bioinformatics. 2004;5: 1–19.
30. Suyama M, Torrents D, Bork P, PAL2NAL: robust conversion of protein sequence alignments into the corresponding codon alignments. Nucleic Acids Res. 2006;34: W609–W612. 16845082
31. Talavera G, Castresana J, Improvement of phylogenies after removing divergent and ambiguously aligned blocks from protein sequence alignments. Syst Biol. 2007;56: 564–577. 17654362
32. Capella-Gutiérrez S, Silla-Martínez JM, Gabaldón T, trimAl: a tool for automated alignment trimming in large-scale phylogenetic analyses. Bioinformatics. 2009;25: 1972–1973. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp348 19505945
33. Stamatakis A, RAxML Version 8: A tool for phylogenetic analysis and post-analysis of large phylogenies. Bioinformatics. 2014; btu033.
34. Lartillot N, Lepage T, Blanquart S, PhyloBayes 3: a Bayesian software package for phylogenetic reconstruction and molecular dating. Bioinformatics. 2009;25: 2286–2288. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp368 19535536
35. Pagel M, Detecting correlated evolution on phylogenies: a general method for the comparative analysis of discrete characters. Proc R Soc B. 1994;255: 37–45.
36. Pagel M, Meade A, Barker D, Bayesian estimation of ancestral character states on phylogenies. Syst Biol. 2004;53: 673–684. 15545248
37. Han MV, Zmasek CM, phyloXML: XML for evolutionary biology and comparative genomics. BMC Bioinformatics. 2009;10: 356. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-10-356 19860910
38. Leebens-Mack J, Vision T, Brenner E, Bowers JE, Cannon S, Clement MJ, et al. Taking the first steps towards a standard for reporting on phylogenies: Minimum Information About a Phylogenetic Analysis (MIAPA). OMICS. 2006;10: 231–237. 16901231
39. Boettiger C, An introduction to Docker for reproducible research. Oper Syst Rev. ACM; 2015;49: 71–79.
40. Kawahara AY, Breinholt JW, Phylogenomics provides strong evidence for relationships of butterflies and moths. Proc R Soc B. 2014;281: 20140970. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2014.0970 24966318
41. Higgs PG, RNA secondary structure: physical and computational aspects. Q Rev Biophys. 2000;33: 199–253. 11191843
42. Shannon CE, A Mathematical Theory of Communication. SIGMOBILE Mob Comput Commun Rev. 2001;5: 3–55.
43. Valdar WSJ, Scoring residue conservation. Proteins. 2002;48: 227–241. 12112692
44. Robinson DF, Foulds LR, Comparison of phylogenetic trees. Math Biosci. 1981;53: 131–147.
45. Kuhner MK, Felsenstein J, A simulation comparison of phylogeny algorithms under equal and unequal evolutionary rates. Mol Biol Evol. 1994;11: 459–468. 8015439
46. Sukumaran J, Holder MT, DendroPy: a Python library for phylogenetic computing. Bioinformatics. 2010;26: 1569–1571. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btq228 20421198
47. Lemmon AR, Emme SA, Lemmon EM, Anchored hybrid enrichment for massively high-throughput phylogenomics. Syst Biol. 2012;61: 727–744. doi: 10.1093/sysbio/sys049 22605266
48. Struck TH, TreSpEx-Detection of misleading signal in phylogenetic reconstructions based on tree information. Evol Bioinform Online. 2014;10: 51–67. doi: 10.4137/EBO.S14239 24701118
49. Schulze-Kremer S, Ontologies for molecular biology and bioinformatics. In Silico Biol. 2002;2: 179–193. 12542404
50. Chisham B, Wright B, Le T, Son TC, Pontelli E, CDAO-store: ontology-driven data integration for phylogenetic analysis. BMC Bioinformatics. 2011;12: 98. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-12-98 21496247