Career advice: switching to computational research

Laboratory work, of the “wet” kind, not working out for you? Or perhaps you just need new challenges. Think you have some aptitude with data analysis, computers, mathematics, statistics? Maybe a switch to computational biology is what you need.

That’s the topic of the Nature Careers feature “Computing: Out of the hood“. With thoughts and advice from (on Twitter) @caseybergman, @sarahmhird, @kcranstn, @PavelTomancak, @ctitusbrown and myself.

I enjoyed talking with Roberta and she did a good job of capturing our thoughts for the article. One of these days, I might even write here about my own journey in more detail.

R: how not to use savehistory() and source()

Admitting to stupidity is part of the learning process. So in the interests of public education, here’s something stupid that I did today.

You’re working in the R console. Happy with your exploratory code, you decide to save it to a file.

savehistory(file = "myCode.R")

Then, you type something else, for example:

ls()
# more lines here

And then, decide that you should save again:

savehistory(file = "myCode.R")

You quit the console. Returning to it later, you recall that you saved your code and so can simply run source() to get back to the same point:

source("myCode.R")

Unfortunately, you forget that the sourced file now contains the savehistory() command. Result: since your new history contains only the single line source() command, then that is what gets saved back to the file, replacing all of your lovely code.

Possible solutions include:

  • Remember to edit the saved file, removing or commenting out any savehistory() lines
  • Generate a file name for savehistory() based on a timestamp so as not to overwrite each time
  • Suggested by Scott: include a prompt in the code before savehistory()

We’re only 10% human. According to…who?

Reading an interesting post at Genomes Unzipped, “Human genetics is microbial genomics“, which states:

Only 10% of cells on your “human” body are human anyway, the rest are microbial.

Have you read a sentence like that before? So have I. So has a reader who left a comment:

I was wondering if you have a source for “Only 10% of cells on your “human” body are human anyway, the rest are microbial”

It’s a good question. Everyone quotes this figure, almost no-one provides a reference. Let’s go in search of one.
Read the rest…

Bacteria and Alzheimer’s disease: I just need to know if ten patients are enough

You can guarantee that when scientists publish a study titled:

Determining the Presence of Periodontopathic Virulence Factors in Short-Term Postmortem Alzheimer’s Disease Brain Tissue

a newspaper will publish a story titled:

Poor dental health and gum disease may cause Alzheimer’s

Without access to the paper, it’s difficult to assess the evidence. I suggest you read Jonathan Eisen’s analysis of the abstract. Essentially, it makes two claims:

  • that cultured astrocytes (a type of brain cell) can adsorb and internalize lipopolysaccharide (LPS) from Porphyromonas gingivalis, a bacterium found in the mouth
  • that LPS was also detected in brain tissue from 4/10 Alzheimer’s disease (AD) cases, but not in tissue from 10 matched normal brains

Regardless of the biochemistry – which does not sound especially convincing to me[1] – how about the statistics?
Read the rest…

Web scraping using Mechanize: PMID to PMCID/NIHMSID

Web services are great. Pass them a URL. Structured data comes back. Parse it, analyse it, visualise it. Done.

Web scraping – interacting programmatically with a web page – is not so great. It requires more code and when the web page changes, the code breaks. However, in the absence of a web service, scraping is better than nothing. It can even be rather satisfying. Early in my bioinformatics career the realisation that code, rather than humans, can automate the process of submitting forms and reading the results was quite a revelation.

In this post: how to interact with a web page at the NCBI using the Mechanize library.

Read the rest…

Microarrays, scan dates and Bioconductor: it shouldn’t be this difficult

When dealing with data from high-throughput experimental platforms such as microarrays, it’s important to account for potential batch effects. A simple example: if you process all your normal tissue samples this week and your cancerous tissue samples next week, you’re in big trouble. Differences between cancer and normal are now confounded with processing time and you may as well start over with new microarrays.

Processing date is often a good surrogate for batch and it was once easy to extract dates from Affymetrix CEL files using Bioconductor. It seems that this is no longer the case.
Read the rest…

Interestingly: the sentence adverbs of PubMed Central

Scientific writing – by which I mean journal articles – is a strange business, full of arcane rules and conventions with origins that no-one remembers but to which everyone adheres.

I’ve always been amused by one particular convention: the sentence adverb. Used with a comma to make a point at the start of a sentence, as in these examples:

Surprisingly, we find that the execution of karyokinesis and cytokinesis is timely…
Grossly, the tumor is well circumscribed with fibrous capsule…
Correspondingly, the short-term Smad7 gene expression is graded…

The example that always makes me smile is interestingly. “This is interesting. You may not have realised that. So I said interestingly, just to make it clear.”

With that in mind, let’s go looking for sentence adverbs in article abstracts.
Read the rest…

“Open”: motivation versus definition

Tweet length: 140 characters. Quote + URL that I wanted to tweet: 160 characters. Solution: brief blog post.

the probability that people who can help each other can be connected has risen to the point that for many types of problem that they actually are

Please read the rest of Cameron’s thoughts on motivations for openness in research: Open is a state of mind.