I’ve had a half-formed, but not very interesting blog post in my head for some months now. It’s about a conversation I had with a PhD student, around 10 years ago, after she went to a bioinformatics talk titled “Excel is not a database” and how she laughed as I’d been telling her that “for years already”. That’s basically the post so as I say, not that interesting, except as an illustration that we’ve been talking about this stuff for a long time (and little has changed).
HEp-2 or not HEp2?
Anyway, we have something better. I was exploring PubMed Commons
, which is becoming a very good resource. The top-featured comment
looks very interesting (see image, right).
Intrigued, I went to investigate the Database of Cross-contaminated or Misidentified Cell Lines, hovered over the download link and saw that it’s – wait for it – a PDF. I’ll say that again. The “database” is a PDF.
The sad thing is that this looks like very useful, interesting information which I’m sure would be used widely if presented in an appropriate (open) format and better-publicised. Please, biological science, stop embarrassing yourself. If you don’t know how to do data properly, talk to someone who does.
I’m currently rather sleep-deprived and prone to doing stupid things. Like this, for example:
rsync -av ~/Dropbox /path/to/backup/directory/
where the directory
/path/to/backup/directory already contains a much-older Dropbox directory. So when I set up a new machine, install Dropbox and copy the Dropbox directory back to its default location – hey! What happened to all my space? What are all these old files? Oh wait…I forgot to delete:
rsync -av --delete ~/Dropbox /path/to/backup/directory/
Now, files can be restored of course, but not when there are thousands of them and I don’t even know what’s old and new. What I want to do is restore the directories under ~/Dropbox to the state that they were in yesterday, before I stuffed up.
Luckily Chris Clark wrote dropbox-restore. It does exactly what it says on the tin. For example:
python restore.py /Camera\ Uploads 2014-07-22
This post is an apology and an attempt to make amends for contributing to the decay of online bioinformatics resources. It’s also, I think, a nice example of why reproducible research can be difficult.
Come back in time with me 10 years, to 2004.
I’ve long admired the work of the Open Source Malaria Project. Unfortunately time and “day job” constraints prevent me from being as involved as I’d like.
So: I was happy to make a small contribution recently in response to this request for help:
Read the rest…
Over the years, I’ve written a lot of small “utility scripts”. You know the kind of thing. Little code snippets that facilitate research, rather than generate research results. For example: just what are the fields that you can use to qualify Entrez database searches?
Typically, they end up languishing in long-forgotten Dropbox directories. Sometimes, the output gets shared as a public link. No longer! As of today, “little code snippets that do (hopefully) useful things” have a new home at Github.
Also as of today: there’s not much there right now, just the aforementioned Entrez database code and output. I’m not out to change the world here, just to do a little better.
There’s a lot of discussion around why code written by self-taught “scientist programmers” rarely follows what a trained computer scientist would consider “best practice”. Here’s a recent post on the topic.
One answer: we begin with exploratory data analysis and never get around to cleaning it up.
An example. For some reason, a researcher (let’s call him “Bob”) becomes interested in a particular dataset in the GEO database. So Bob opens the R console and use the GEOquery package to grab the data:
Update: those of you commenting “should have used Python instead” have completely missed the point. Your comments are off-topic and will not be published. Doubly-so when you get snarky about it.
Read the rest…
Just a brief technical note.
I figured that for a given compound in PubChem, it would be interesting to know whether that compound had been used in a high-throughput experiment, which you might find in GEO. Very easy using the E-utilities, as implemented in the R package rentrez:
links <- entrez_link(dbfrom = "pccompound", db = "gds", id = "62857")
#  741
Browsing the rentrez documentation, I note that db can take the value “all”. Sounds useful!
links <- entrez_link(dbfrom = "pccompound", db = "all", id = "62857")
#  0
That’s odd. In fact, this query does not even link pccompound to gds:
#  39
which(names(links) == "pccompound_gds")
It’s not a rentrez issue, since the same result occurs using the E-utilities URL.
The good people at ropensci have opened an issue, contacting NCBI for clarification. We’ll keep you posted.
Next week I’ll be in Melbourne for one of my favourite meetings, the annual Computational and Simulation Sciences and eResearch Conference.
The main reason for my visit is the Bioinformatics FOAM workshop. Day 1 (March 27) is not advertised since it is an internal CSIRO day, but I’ll be presenting a talk titled “SQL, noSQL or no database at all? Are databases still a core skill?“. Day 2 (March 28) is open to all and I’ll be talking about “Learning from complete strangers: social networking for bioinformaticians“.
I imagine these and other talks will appear on Slideshare soon, at both my account and that of the Australian Bioinformatics Network.
I’m also excited to see that Victoria Stodden is presenting a keynote at the main CSS meeting (PDF) on “Reproducibility in Computational Science: Opportunities and Challenges”.
Hope to see some of you there.
A DOI, this morning
When I arrive at work, the first task for the day is “check feeds”. If I’m lucky, in the “journal TOCs” category, there will be an abstract that looks interesting, like this one on the left (click for larger version).
Sometimes, the title is a direct link to the article at the journal website. Often though, the link is a Digital Object Identifier or DOI. Frequently, when the article is labelled as “advance access” or “early”, clicking on the DOI link leads to a page like the one below on the right.
In the grand scheme of things I suppose this rates as “minor annoyance”; it means that I have to visit the journal website and search for the article in question. The question is: why does this happen? I’m not familiar with the practical details of setting up a DOI, but I assume that the journal submits article URLs to the DOI system for processing. So who do I blame – journals, for making URLs public before the DOI is ready, or the DOI system, for not processing new URLs quickly enough?
There’s also the issue of whether terms like “advance access” have any meaning in the era of instant, online publishing but that’s for another day.
One of my more popular posts is A brief introduction to “apply” in R. Come August, it will be four years old. Technology moves on, old blog posts do not.
So: thanks to BioStar user zx8754 for pointing me to this Stack Overflow post, in which someone complains that the code in the post does not work as described. The by example is now fixed.
Side note: I often find “contact the author” is the most direct approach to solving this kind of problem ;) always happy to be contacted.