BioSimulators: a central registry of simulation engines and services for recommending specific tools.

Computational models have great potential to accelerate bioscience, bioengineering, and medicine. However, it remains challenging to reproduce and reuse simulations, in part, because the numerous formats and methods for simulating various subsystems and scales remain siloed by different software tools. For example, each tool must be executed through a distinct interface. To help investigators find and use simulation tools, we developed BioSimulators (https://biosimulators.org), a central registry of the capabilities of simulation tools and consistent Python, command-line and containerized interfaces to each version of each tool. The foundation of BioSimulators is standards, such as CellML, SBML, SED-ML and the COMBINE archive format, and validation tools for simulation projects and simulation tools that ensure these standards are used consistently. To help modelers find tools for particular projects, we have also used the registry to develop recommendation services. We anticipate that BioSimulators will help modelers exchange, reproduce, and combine simulations.

Perspectives on automated composition of workflows in the life sciences.

Scientific data analyses often combine several computational tools in automated pipelines, or workflows. Thousands of such workflows have been used in the life sciences, though their composition has remained a cumbersome manual process due to a lack of standards for annotation, assembly, and implementation. Recent technological advances have returned the long-standing vision of automated workflow composition into focus. This article summarizes a recent Lorentz Center workshop dedicated to automated composition of workflows in the life sciences. We survey previous initiatives to automate the composition process, and discuss the current state of the art and future perspectives. We start by drawing the "big picture" of the scientific workflow development life cycle, before surveying and discussing current methods, technologies and practices for semantic domain modelling, automation in workflow development, and workflow assessment. Finally, we derive a roadmap of individual and community-based actions to work toward the vision of automated workflow development in the forthcoming years. A central outcome of the workshop is a general description of the workflow life cycle in six stages: 1) scientific question or hypothesis, 2) conceptual workflow, 3) abstract workflow, 4) concrete workflow, 5) production workflow, and 6) scientific results. The transitions between stages are facilitated by diverse tools and methods, usually incorporating domain knowledge in some form. Formal semantic domain modelling is hard and often a bottleneck for the application of semantic technologies. However, life science communities have made considerable progress here in recent years and are continuously improving, renewing interest in the application of semantic technologies for workflow exploration, composition and instantiation. Combined with systematic benchmarking with reference data and large-scale deployment of production-stage workflows, such technologies enable a more systematic process of workflow development than we know today. We believe that this can lead to more robust, reusable, and sustainable workflows in the future.

APE in the Wild: Automated Exploration of Proteomics Workflows in the bio.tools Registry.

The bio.tools registry is a main catalogue of computational tools in the life sciences. More than 17 000 tools have been registered by the international bioinformatics community. The bio.tools metadata schema includes semantic annotations of tool functions, that is, formal descriptions of tools' data types, formats, and operations with terms from the EDAM bioinformatics ontology. Such annotations enable the automated composition of tools into multistep pipelines or workflows. In this Technical Note, we revisit a previous case study on the automated composition of proteomics workflows. We use the same four workflow scenarios but instead of using a small set of tools with carefully handcrafted annotations, we explore workflows directly on bio.tools. We use the Automated Pipeline Explorer (APE), a reimplementation and extension of the workflow composition method previously used. Moving "into the wild" opens up an unprecedented wealth of tools and a huge number of alternative workflows. Automated composition tools can be used to explore this space of possibilities systematically. Inevitably, the mixed quality of semantic annotations in bio.tools leads to unintended or erroneous tool combinations. However, our results also show that additional control mechanisms (tool filters, configuration options, and workflow constraints) can effectively guide the exploration toward smaller sets of more meaningful workflows.

biotoolsSchema: a formalized schema for bioinformatics software description.

BACKGROUND: Life scientists routinely face massive and heterogeneous data analysis tasks and must find and access the most suitable databases or software in a jungle of web-accessible resources. The diversity of information used to describe life-scientific digital resources presents an obstacle to their utilization. Although several standardization efforts are emerging, no information schema has been sufficiently detailed to enable uniform semantic and syntactic description-and cataloguing-of bioinformatics resources. FINDINGS: Here we describe biotoolsSchema, a formalized information model that balances the needs of conciseness for rapid adoption against the provision of rich technical information and scientific context. biotoolsSchema results from a series of community-driven workshops and is deployed in the bio.tools registry, providing the scientific community with >17,000 machine-readable and human-understandable descriptions of software and other digital life-science resources. We compare our approach to related initiatives and provide alignments to foster interoperability and reusability. CONCLUSIONS: biotoolsSchema supports the formalized, rigorous, and consistent specification of the syntax and semantics of bioinformatics resources, and enables cataloguing efforts such as bio.tools that help scientists to find, comprehend, and compare resources. The use of biotoolsSchema in bio.tools promotes the FAIRness of research software, a key element of open and reproducible developments for data-intensive sciences.

JIB.tools 2.0 - A Bioinformatics Registry for Journal Published Tools with Interoperability to bio.tools.

JIB.tools 2.0 is a new approach to more closely embed the curation process in the publication process. This website hosts the tools, software applications, databases and workflow systems published in the Journal of Integrative Bioinformatics (JIB). As soon as a new tool-related publication is published in JIB, the tool is posted to JIB.tools and can afterwards be easily transferred to bio.tools, a large information repository of software tools, databases and services for bioinformatics and the life sciences. In this way, an easily-accessible list of tools is provided which were published in JIB a well as status information regarding the underlying service. With newer registries like bio.tools providing these information on a bigger scale, JIB.tools 2.0 closes the gap between journal publications and registry publication. (Reference: https://jib.tools).

Community curation of bioinformatics software and data resources.

The corpus of bioinformatics resources is huge and expanding rapidly, presenting life scientists with a growing challenge in selecting tools that fit the desired purpose. To address this, the European Infrastructure for Biological Information is supporting a systematic approach towards a comprehensive registry of tools and databases for all domains of bioinformatics, provided under a single portal (https://bio.tools). We describe here the practical means by which scientific communities, including individual developers and projects, through major service providers and research infrastructures, can describe their own bioinformatics resources and share these via bio.tools.

One Thousand and One Software for Proteomics: Tales of the Toolmakers of Science.

Proteomics is a highly dynamic field driven by frequent introduction of new technological approaches, leading to high demand for new software tools and the concurrent development of many methods for data analysis, processing, and storage. The rapidly changing landscape of proteomics software makes finding a tool fit for a particular purpose a significant challenge. The comparison of software and the selection of tools capable to perform a certain operation on a given type of data rely on their detailed annotation using well-defined descriptors. However, finding accurate information including tool input/output capabilities can be challenging and often heavily depends on manual curation efforts. This is further hampered by a rather low half-life of most of the tools, thus demanding the maintenance of a resource with updated information about the tools. We present here our approach to curate a collection of 189 software tools with detailed information about their functional capabilities. We furthermore describe our efforts to reach out to the proteomics community for their engagement, which further increased the catalog to >750 tools being about 70% of the estimated number of 1097 tools existing for proteomics data analysis. Descriptions of all annotated tools are available at  https://proteomics.bio.tools.

The bio.tools registry of software tools and data resources for the life sciences.

Bioinformaticians and biologists rely increasingly upon workflows for the flexible utilization of the many life science tools that are needed to optimally convert data into knowledge. We outline a pan-European enterprise to provide a catalogue ( https://bio.tools ) of tools and databases that can be used in these workflows. bio.tools not only lists where to find resources, but also provides a wide variety of practical information.

Automated workflow composition in mass spectrometry-based proteomics.

MOTIVATION: Numerous software utilities operating on mass spectrometry (MS) data are described in the literature and provide specific operations as building blocks for the assembly of on-purpose workflows. Working out which tools and combinations are applicable or optimal in practice is often hard. Thus researchers face difficulties in selecting practical and effective data analysis pipelines for a specific experimental design. RESULTS: We provide a toolkit to support researchers in identifying, comparing and benchmarking multiple workflows from individual bioinformatics tools. Automated workflow composition is enabled by the tools' semantic annotation in terms of the EDAM ontology. To demonstrate the practical use of our framework, we created and evaluated a number of logically and semantically equivalent workflows for four use cases representing frequent tasks in MS-based proteomics. Indeed we found that the results computed by the workflows could vary considerably, emphasizing the benefits of a framework that facilitates their systematic exploration. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: The project files and workflows are available from https://github.com/bio-tools/biotoolsCompose/tree/master/Automatic-Workflow-Composition. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

Four simple recommendations to encourage best practices in research software.

Scientific research relies on computer software, yet software is not always developed following practices that ensure its quality and sustainability. This manuscript does not aim to propose new software development best practices, but rather to provide simple recommendations that encourage the adoption of existing best practices. Software development best practices promote better quality software, and better quality software improves the reproducibility and reusability of research. These recommendations are designed around Open Source values, and provide practical suggestions that contribute to making research software and its source code more discoverable, reusable and transparent. This manuscript is aimed at developers, but also at organisations, projects, journals and funders that can increase the quality and sustainability of research software by encouraging the adoption of these recommendations.

Identifiers for the 21st century: How to design, provision, and reuse persistent identifiers to maximize utility and impact of life science data.

In many disciplines, data are highly decentralized across thousands of online databases (repositories, registries, and knowledgebases). Wringing value from such databases depends on the discipline of data science and on the humble bricks and mortar that make integration possible; identifiers are a core component of this integration infrastructure. Drawing on our experience and on work by other groups, we outline 10 lessons we have learned about the identifier qualities and best practices that facilitate large-scale data integration. Specifically, we propose actions that identifier practitioners (database providers) should take in the design, provision and reuse of identifiers. We also outline the important considerations for those referencing identifiers in various circumstances, including by authors and data generators. While the importance and relevance of each lesson will vary by context, there is a need for increased awareness about how to avoid and manage common identifier problems, especially those related to persistence and web-accessibility/resolvability. We focus strongly on web-based identifiers in the life sciences; however, the principles are broadly relevant to other disciplines.

ReGaTE: Registration of Galaxy Tools in Elixir.

Background: Bioinformaticians routinely use multiple software tools and data sources in their day-to-day work and have been guided in their choices by a number of cataloguing initiatives. The ELIXIR Tools and Data Services Registry (bio.tools) aims to provide a central information point, independent of any specific scientific scope within bioinformatics or technological implementation. Meanwhile, efforts to integrate bioinformatics software in workbench and workflow environments have accelerated to enable the design, automation, and reproducibility of bioinformatics experiments. One such popular environment is the Galaxy framework, with currently more than 80 publicly available Galaxy servers around the world. In the context of a generic registry for bioinformatics software, such as bio.tools, Galaxy instances constitute a major source of valuable content. Yet there has been, to date, no convenient mechanism to register such services en masse. We present ReGaTE (Registration of Galaxy Tools in Elixir), a software utility that automates the process of registering the services available in a Galaxy instance. This utility uses the BioBlend application program interface to extract service metadata from a Galaxy server, enhance the metadata with the scientific information required by bio.tools, and push it to the registry. ReGaTE provides a fast and convenient way to publish Galaxy services in bio.tools. By doing so, service providers may increase the visibility of their services while enriching the software discovery function that bio.tools provides for its users. The source code of ReGaTE is freely available on Github at https://github.com/C3BI-pasteur-fr/ReGaTE .

Using bio.tools to generate and annotate workbench tool descriptions.

Workbench and workflow systems such as Galaxy, Taverna, Chipster, or Common Workflow Language (CWL)-based frameworks, facilitate the access to bioinformatics tools in a user-friendly, scalable and reproducible way. Still, the integration of tools in such environments remains a cumbersome, time consuming and error-prone process. A major consequence is the incomplete or outdated description of tools that are often missing important information, including parameters and metadata such as publication or links to documentation. ToolDog (Tool DescriptiOn Generator) facilitates the integration of tools - which have been registered in the ELIXIR tools registry (https://bio.tools) - into workbench environments by generating tool description templates. ToolDog includes two modules. The first module analyses the source code of the bioinformatics software with language-specific plugins, and generates a skeleton for a Galaxy XML or CWL tool description. The second module is dedicated to the enrichment of the generated tool description, using metadata provided by bio.tools. This last module can also be used on its own to complete or correct existing tool descriptions with missing metadata.

Tools and data services registry: a community effort to document bioinformatics resources.

Life sciences are yielding huge data sets that underpin scientific discoveries fundamental to improvement in human health, agriculture and the environment. In support of these discoveries, a plethora of databases and tools are deployed, in technically complex and diverse implementations, across a spectrum of scientific disciplines. The corpus of documentation of these resources is fragmented across the Web, with much redundancy, and has lacked a common standard of information. The outcome is that scientists must often struggle to find, understand, compare and use the best resources for the task at hand.Here we present a community-driven curation effort, supported by ELIXIR-the European infrastructure for biological information-that aspires to a comprehensive and consistent registry of information about bioinformatics resources. The sustainable upkeep of this Tools and Data Services Registry is assured by a curation effort driven by and tailored to local needs, and shared amongst a network of engaged partners.As of November 2015, the registry includes 1785 resources, with depositions from 126 individual registrations including 52 institutional providers and 74 individuals. With community support, the registry can become a standard for dissemination of information about bioinformatics resources: we welcome everyone to join us in this common endeavour. The registry is freely available at https://bio.tools.

The Software Ontology (SWO): a resource for reproducibility in biomedical data analysis, curation and digital preservation.

MOTIVATION: Biomedical ontologists to date have concentrated on ontological descriptions of biomedical entities such as gene products and their attributes, phenotypes and so on. Recently, effort has diversified to descriptions of the laboratory investigations by which these entities were produced. However, much biological insight is gained from the analysis of the data produced from these investigations, and there is a lack of adequate descriptions of the wide range of software that are central to bioinformatics. We need to describe how data are analyzed for discovery, audit trails, provenance and reproducibility. RESULTS: The Software Ontology (SWO) is a description of software used to store, manage and analyze data. Input to the SWO has come from beyond the life sciences, but its main focus is the life sciences. We used agile techniques to gather input for the SWO and keep engagement with our users. The result is an ontology that meets the needs of a broad range of users by describing software, its information processing tasks, data inputs and outputs, data formats versions and so on. Recently, the SWO has incorporated EDAM, a vocabulary for describing data and related concepts in bioinformatics. The SWO is currently being used to describe software used in multiple biomedical applications. CONCLUSION: The SWO is another element of the biomedical ontology landscape that is necessary for the description of biomedical entities and how they were discovered. An ontology of software used to analyze data produced by investigations in the life sciences can be made in such a way that it covers the important features requested and prioritized by its users. The SWO thus fits into the landscape of biomedical ontologies and is produced using techniques designed to keep it in line with user's needs. AVAILABILITY: The Software Ontology is available under an Apache 2.0 license at http://theswo.sourceforge.net/; the Software Ontology blog can be read at http://softwareontology.wordpress.com.

EDAM: an ontology of bioinformatics operations, types of data and identifiers, topics and formats.

MOTIVATION: Advancing the search, publication and integration of bioinformatics tools and resources demands consistent machine-understandable descriptions. A comprehensive ontology allowing such descriptions is therefore required. RESULTS: EDAM is an ontology of bioinformatics operations (tool or workflow functions), types of data and identifiers, application domains and data formats. EDAM supports semantic annotation of diverse entities such as Web services, databases, programmatic libraries, standalone tools, interactive applications, data schemas, datasets and publications within bioinformatics. EDAM applies to organizing and finding suitable tools and data and to automating their integration into complex applications or workflows. It includes over 2200 defined concepts and has successfully been used for annotations and implementations. AVAILABILITY: The latest stable version of EDAM is available in OWL format from http://edamontology.org/EDAM.owl and in OBO format from http://edamontology.org/EDAM.obo. It can be viewed online at the NCBO BioPortal and the EBI Ontology Lookup Service. For documentation and license please refer to http://edamontology.org. This article describes version 1.2 available at http://edamontology.org/EDAM_1.2.owl. CONTACT: jison@ebi.ac.uk.

ArrayExpress update--trends in database growth and links to data analysis tools.

The ArrayExpress Archive of Functional Genomics Data (http://www.ebi.ac.uk/arrayexpress) is one of three international functional genomics public data repositories, alongside the Gene Expression Omnibus at NCBI and the DDBJ Omics Archive, supporting peer-reviewed publications. It accepts data generated by sequencing or array-based technologies and currently contains data from almost a million assays, from over 30 000 experiments. The proportion of sequencing-based submissions has grown significantly over the last 2 years and has reached, in 2012, 15% of all new data. All data are available from ArrayExpress in MAGE-TAB format, which allows robust linking to data analysis and visualization tools, including Bioconductor and GenomeSpace. Additionally, R objects, for microarray data, and binary alignment format files, for sequencing data, have been generated for a significant proportion of ArrayExpress data.

BioXSD: the common data-exchange format for everyday bioinformatics web services.

MOTIVATION: The world-wide community of life scientists has access to a large number of public bioinformatics databases and tools, which are developed and deployed using diverse technologies and designs. More and more of the resources offer programmatic web-service interface. However, efficient use of the resources is hampered by the lack of widely used, standard data-exchange formats for the basic, everyday bioinformatics data types. RESULTS: BioXSD has been developed as a candidate for standard, canonical exchange format for basic bioinformatics data. BioXSD is represented by a dedicated XML Schema and defines syntax for biological sequences, sequence annotations, alignments and references to resources. We have adapted a set of web services to use BioXSD as the input and output format, and implemented a test-case workflow. This demonstrates that the approach is feasible and provides smooth interoperability. Semantics for BioXSD is provided by annotation with the EDAM ontology. We discuss in a separate section how BioXSD relates to other initiatives and approaches, including existing standards and the Semantic Web. AVAILABILITY: The BioXSD 1.0 XML Schema is freely available at http://www.bioxsd.org/BioXSD-1.0.xsd under the Creative Commons BY-ND 3.0 license. The http://bioxsd.org web page offers documentation, examples of data in BioXSD format, example workflows with source codes in common programming languages, an updated list of compatible web services and tools and a repository of feature requests from the community.

The EMBRACE web service collection.

The EMBRACE (European Model for Bioinformatics Research and Community Education) web service collection is the culmination of a 5-year project that set out to investigate issues involved in developing and deploying web services for use in the life sciences. The project concluded that in order for web services to achieve widespread adoption, standards must be defined for the choice of web service technology, for semantically annotating both service function and the data exchanged, and a mechanism for discovering services must be provided. Building on this, the project developed: EDAM, an ontology for describing life science web services; BioXSD, a schema for exchanging data between services; and a centralized registry (http://www.embraceregistry.net) that collects together around 1000 services developed by the consortium partners. This article presents the current status of the collection and its associated recommendations and standards definitions.

Survey of the geometric association of domain-domain interfaces.

Considering the limited success of the most sophisticated docking methods available and the amount of computation required for systematic docking, cataloging all the known interfaces may be an alternative basis for the prediction of protein tertiary and quaternary structures. We classify domain interfaces according to the geometry of domain-domain association. By applying a simple and efficient method called "interface tag clustering," more than 4,000 distinct types of domain interfaces are collected from Protein Quaternary Structure Server and Protein Data Bank. Given a pair of interacting domains, we define "face" as the set of interacting residues in each single domain and the pair of interacting faces as an "interface." We investigate how the geometry of interfaces relates to a network of interacting protein families, such as how many different binding orientations are possible between two families or whether a family uses distinct surfaces or the same surface when the family has diverse interaction partners from various families. We show there are, on average, 1.2-1.9 different types of interfaces between interacting domains and a significant number of family pairs associate in multiple orientations. In general, a family tends to use distinct faces for each partner when the family has diverse interaction partners. Each face is highly specific to its interaction partner and the binding orientation. The relative positions of interface residues are generally well conserved within the same type of interface even between remote homologs. The classification result is available at http://www.biotec.tu-dresden.de/~wkim/supplement.