Glont, M. | Search bioRxiv

bioRxiv2020

Reproducibility in systems biology modelling

The reproducibility crisis has emerged as an important concern across many fields of science including life science, since many published results failed to reproduce. Systems biology modelling, which involves mathematical representation of biological processes to study complex system behaviour, was expected to be least affected by this crisis. While lack of reproducibility of experimental results and computational analysis could be a repercussion of several compounded factors, it was not fully understood why systems biology models with well-defined mathematical expressions fail to reproduce and how prevalent it is. Hence, we systematically attempted to reproduce 455 kinetic models of biological processes published in peer-reviewed research articles from 152 journals; which is collectively a work of about 1400 scientists from 49 countries. Our investigation revealed that about half (49%) of the models could not be reproduced using the information provided in the published manuscripts. With further effort, an additional 12% of the models could be reproduced either by empirical correction or support from authors. The other 37% remained non-reproducible models due to missing parameter values, missing initial concentration, inconsistent model structure, or a combination of these factors. Among the corresponding authors of the non-reproducible model we contacted, less than 30% responded. Our analysis revealed that models published in journals across several fields of life science failed to reproduce, revealing a common problem in the peer-review process. Hence, we propose an 8-point reproducibility scorecard that can be used by authors, reviewers and journal editors to assess each model and address the reproducibility crisis.

systems biology↗

bioRxiv2018

Quantifying the impact of public omics data

The amount of omics data in the public domain is increasing every year [1, 2]. Public availability of datasets is growing in all disciplines, because it is considered to be a good scientific practice (e.g. to enable reproducibility), and/or it is mandated by funding agencies, scientific journals, etc. Science is now a data intensive discipline and therefore, new and innovative ways for data management, data sharing, and for discovering novel datasets are increasingly required [3, 4]. However, as data volumes grow, quantifying its impact becomes more and more important. In this context, the FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) principles have been developed to promote good scientific practises for scientific data and data resources [5]. In fact, recently, several resources [1, 2, 6] have been created to facilitate the Findability (F) and Accessibility (A) of biomedical datasets. These principles put a specific emphasis on enhancing the ability of both individuals and software to discover and re-use digital objects in an automated fashion throughout their entire life cycle [5]. While data resources typically assign an equal relevance to all datasets (e.g. as results of a query), the usage patterns of the data can vary enormously, similarly to other \"research products\" such as publications. How do we know which datasets are getting more attention? More generally, how can we quantify the scientific impact of datasets?

bioinformatics↗