Computing Workflows for Biologists: A Roadmap

PLoS Biology

Volumn 13, Issue 11, 2015, Pages

  Shade, Ashley ^a,b   Teal, Tracy K ^b,c  

^a Michigan State University ^*  (United States)

^b MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGY; INFORMATION PROCESSING; SOUND; WORKFLOW; ANIMAL; COMPUTER ANALYSIS; DATABASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM; HUMAN; MANPOWER; NOMENCLATURE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PROCEDURES; REPRODUCIBILITY; TRENDS;

ANIMALS; BIOLOGY; COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; COMPUTING METHODOLOGIES; DATABASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS; DATASETS AS TOPIC; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; TERMINOLOGY AS TOPIC; WORKFLOW;

EID: 84949451255     PISSN: 15449173     EISSN: 15457885     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002303     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Noble WS, A quick guide to organizing computational biology projects. PLoS Computational Biology. 2009 Jul;5(7):e1000424 doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000424 19649301
2. Peng RD, Reproducible Research in Computational Science. Science. 2011;334: 1226–1227. doi: 10.1126/science.1213847 22144613
3. Sandve GK, Nekrutenko A, Taylor J, Hovig E, Ten Simple Rules for Reproducible Computational Research. PLoS Comput Biol. 2013;9:e1003285. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003285 24204232
4. Loman N, Watson M, So you want to be a computational biologist? Nat Biotechnol. 2013;31: 996–998. doi: 10.1038/nbt.2740 24213777
5. Dudley JT, Butte AJ, A quick guide for developing effective bioinformatics programming skills. PLoS Computational Biology. 2009 Dec;5(12):e1000589. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000589 20041221
6. Wilson G, Aruliah DA, Brown CT, Chue Hong NP, Davis M, Guy RT, et al. Best Practices for Scientific Computing. PLoS Biol. 2014;12(1):e1001745. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001745 24415924
7. Weber RJM, Winder CL, Larcombe LD, Dunn WB, Viant MR, Training needs in metabolomics. Metabolomics. Springer US; 2015; 2–4.
8. Teal TK, Cranston K a., Lapp H, White E, Wilson G, Ram K, et al. Data Carpentry: Workshops to Increase Data Literacy for Researchers. Int J Digit Curation. 2015;10: 135–143.
9. EMBL Australia. BRAEMBL community survey report– 2013. 2013. http://braembl.org.au/news/braembl-community-survey-report-2013
10. Brown CT, Scott C, Crusoe MR. Comparing and evaluating assembly with graph alignment. In: Living In an Ivory Basement. 2015. Cited 19 Aug 2015. http://ivory.idyll.org/blog/2015-wok-evaluate.html
11. Schloss PD, Gevers D, Westcott SL, Reducing the effects of PCR amplification and sequencing artifacts on 16S rRNA-based studies. PLoS One. 2011;6: e27310. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0027310 22194782
12. Gentzkow M, Shapiro JM. Code and Data for the Social Sciences : A Practitioner’s Guide. 2014; https://people.stanford.edu/gentzkow/sites/default/files/codeanddata.xhtml
13. Osborne JM, Bernabeu MO, Bruna M, Calderhead B, Cooper J, Dalchau N, et al. Ten Simple Rules for Effective Computational Research. PLoS Comput Biol. 2014;10: e1003506 doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003506 24675742
14. Möller S, Afgan E, Banck M, Bonnal RJP, Booth T, Chilton J, et al. Community-driven development for computational biology at Sprints, Hackathons and Codefests. BMC Bioinformatics. 2014;15 Suppl 14:S7 doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-15-S14-S7 25472764
15. Petre M, Wilson G. Code Review For and By Scientists. arXiv Prepr arXiv14075648. 2014; 4. http://arxiv.org/abs/1407.5648