Reproducibility of computational workflows is automated using continuous analysis

Nature Biotechnology

Volumn 35, Issue 4, 2017, Pages 342-346

  Beaulieu Jones, Brett K ^a   Greene, Casey S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOTECHNOLOGY;

COMPUTATIONAL ANALYSIS; COMPUTATIONAL EXPERIMENT; COMPUTATIONAL WORKFLOWS; COMPUTING ENVIRONMENTS; CONTINUOUS ANALYSIS; CONTINUOUS INTEGRATIONS; SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS; SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT TECHNIQUES;

SOFTWARE DESIGN;

ARTICLE; GENE EXPRESSION; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; MOUSE; NONHUMAN; PHYLOGENETIC TREE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REPRODUCIBILITY; SOFTWARE; WORKFLOW; BIOLOGY; COMPUTER INTERFACE; GENE EXPRESSION PROFILING; MACHINE LEARNING; PROCEDURES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; GENE EXPRESSION PROFILING; MACHINE LEARNING; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SOFTWARE; USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE; WORKFLOW;

EID: 85017331188     PISSN: 10870156     EISSN: 15461696     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nbt.3780     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Anonymous. Rebooting review. Nat. Biotechnol. 33, 319 (2015).
2. Anonymous. Software with impact. Nat. Methods 11, 211 (2014).
3. Peng, R. D. Reproducible research in computational science. Science 334, 1226-1227 (2011).
4. McNutt, M. Reproducibility. Science 343, 229 (2014).
5. Anonymous. Illuminating the black box. Nature 442, 1 (2006).
6. Baker, M. 1, 500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature 533, 452-454 (2016).
7. Garijo, D., et al. Quantifying reproducibility in computational biology: The case of the tuberculosis drugome. PLoS One 8, e80278 (2013).
8. Kinnings, S. L., et al. The Mycobacterium tuberculosis drugome and its polypharmacological implications. PLoS Comput. Biol. 6, e1000976 (2010).
9. Ioannidis, J. P. A., et al. Repeatability of published microarray gene expression analyses. Nat. Genet. 41, 149-155 (2009).
10. Hothorn, T., Leisch, F. Case studies in reproducibility. Brief. Bioinform. 12, 288-300 (2011).
11. Groves, T., Godlee, F. Open science and reproducible research. Br. Med. J. 344, e4383 (2012).
12. Boettiger, C. An introduction to Docker for reproducible research, with examples from the R environment. ACM SIGOPS Oper. Syst. Rev. 49, 71-79 (2015).
13. Dai, M., et al. Evolving gene/transcript definitions significantly alter the interpretation of GeneChip data. Nucleic Acids Res. 33, e175 (2005).
14. Núñez, M., Sánchez-Jiménez, C., Alcalde, J., Izquierdo, J. M. Long-term reduction of T-cell intracellular antigens reveals a transcriptome associated with extracellular matrix and cell adhesion components. PLoS One 9, e113141 (2014).
15. Docker v. 1. 12. 5, build 7392c3b (Docker, 2016).
16. Duvall, P., Matyas, S., Glover, A. Continuous Integration: Improving Software Quality and Reducing Risk (Addison-Wesley Professional, 2007).
17. Pérez, F., Granger, B. E. IPython: A system for interactive scientific computing. Comput. Sci. Eng. 9, 21-29 (2007).
18. Jupyter v. 4. 1. 0 (Project Jupyter, 2016).
19. RStudio: Integrated Development for R: V. 0. 98. 1083 (RStudio Inc., 2015).
20. Baumer, B., Cetinkaya-Rundel, M., Bray, A., Loi, L., Horton, N. J. R. Markdown: Integrating a reproducible analysis tool into introductory statistics. Technol. Innov. Stat. Educ. 8, uclastat-cts-tise-20118 (2014).
21. Friedrich Leisch. Sweave: Dynamic generation of statistical reports using literate data analysis. Proc. Comput. Stat. 2002, 575-580 (2002).
22. Beaulieu-Jones, B. K., Greene, C. S. Semi-supervised learning of the electronic health record for phenotype stratification. J. Biomed. Inform. 64, 168-178 (2016).
23. Katoh, K., Misawa, K., Kuma, K., Miyata, T. MAFFT: A novel method for rapid multiple sequence alignment based on fast Fourier transform. Nucleic Acids Res. 30, 3059-3066 (2002).
24. Felsenstein, J. PHYLIP-phylogeny inference package (version 3. 2). Cladistics 5, 164-166 (1989).
25. Boj, S. F., et al. Organoid models of human and mouse ductal pancreatic cancer. Cell 160, 324-338 (2015).
26. Bray, N. L., Pimentel, H., Melsted, P., Pachter, L. Near-optimal probabilistic RNA-seq quantification. Nat. Biotechnol. 34, 525-527 (2016).
27. Ritchie, M. E., et al. limma powers differential expression analyses for RNA-sequencing and microarray studies. Nucleic Acids Res. 43, e47 (2015).
28. Smyth, G. K. Linear models and empirical bayes methods for assessing differential expression in microarray experiments. Stat. Appl. Genet. Mol. Biol. 3, e3 (2004).
29. Pimentel, H. J., Bray, N., Puente, S., Melsted, P., Pachter, L. Differential analysis of RNA-seq incorporating quantification uncertainty. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi. org/10. 1101/058164 (2016).
30. Souilmi, Y., et al. Scalable and cost-effective NGS genotyping in the cloud. BMC Med. Genomics 8, 64 (2015).
31. Stodden, V., et al. Enhancing reproducibility for computational methods. Science 354, 1240-1241 (2016).
32. Pollard, K. S., Dudoit, S., van der Laan, M. J. Multiple testing procedures: The multtest package and applications to genomics. in Bioinformatics and Computational Biology Solutions Using R and Bioconductor (eds. Gentleman, R., et al. ) (Springer New York, 2005).
33. Rice, P., Longden, I., Bleasby, A. EMBOSS: The European Molecular Biology Open Software Suite. Trends Genet. 16, 276-277 (2000).