Search bioRxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/bioRxiv

bioRxiv · 10.1101/2020.08.04.236208

Using rapid prototyping to choose a bioinformatics workflow management system

Jackson, M.·Wallace, E.·Kavoussanakis, K.
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Workflow management systems represent, manage, and execute multi-step computational analyses and offer many benefits to bioinformaticians. They provide a common language for describing analysis workflows, contributing to reproducibility and to building libraries of reusable components. They can support both incremental build and re-entrancy - the ability to selectively re-execute parts of a workflow in the presence of additional inputs or changes in configuration and to resume execution from where a workflow previously stopped. Many workflow management systems enhance portability by supporting the use of containers, high-performance computing systems and clouds. Most importantly, workflow management systems allow bioinformaticians to delegate how their workflows are run to the workflow management system and its developers. This frees the bioinformaticians to focus on the content of these workflows, their data analyses, and their science. RiboViz is a package to extract biological insight from ribosome profiling data to help advance understanding of protein synthesis. At the heart of RiboViz is an analysis workflow, implemented in a Python script. To conform to best practices for scientific computing which recommend the use of build tools to automate workflows and to re-use code instead of rewriting it, the authors reimplemented this workflow within a workflow management system. To select a workflow management system, a rapid survey of available systems was undertaken, and candidates were shortlisted: Snakemake, cwltool and Toil (implementations of the Common Workflow Language) and Nextflow. An evaluation of each candidate, via rapid prototyping of a subset of the RiboViz workflow, was performed and Nextflow was chosen. The selection process took 10 person-days, a small cost for the assurance that Nextflow best satisfied the authors requirements. This use of rapid prototyping can offer a low-cost way of making a more informed selection of software to use within projects, rather than relying solely upon reviews and recommendations by others. Author summaryData analysis involves many steps, as data are wrangled, processed, and analysed using a succession of unrelated software packages. Running all the right steps, in the right order, with the right outputs in the right places is a major source of frustration. Workflow management systems require that each data analysis step be "wrapped" in a structured way, describing its inputs, parameters, and outputs. By writing these wrappers the scientist can focus on the meaning of each step, which is the interesting part. The system uses these wrappers to decide what steps to run and how to run these, and takes charge of running the steps, including reporting on errors. This makes it much easier to repeatedly run the analysis and to run it transparently upon different computers. To select a workflow management system, we surveyed available tools and selected three for "rapid prototype" implementations to evaluate their suitability for our project. We advocate this rapid prototyping as a low-cost (both time and effort) way of making an informed selection of a system for use within a project. We conclude that many similar multi-step data analysis workflows can be rewritten in a workflow management system.

Source connections

Explore related subjects

bioinformaticsPreprint

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Jackson, M., Wallace, E., Kavoussanakis, K.. 2020-08-05. Using rapid prototyping to choose a bioinformatics workflow management system. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.04.236208

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related preprints

bioRxiv2026

Accelerating discovery and integration from RNA to Protein with R2T2P

Integrating transcriptomics and proteomics data remains an unmet challenge in the post-genomics era, discouraging researchers from pursuing integrative approaches to molecular biology research. Leveraging the power of translation profiling, we present RNA to Translation to Protein (R2T2P), a computational platform integrating genome-guided transcriptome assembly with identification of translation and proteins, including a tailored differential analysis framework and support for multiple reference transcriptomes. We applied R2T2P to investigate a cellular model of facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy (FSHD), where ectopic expression of the DUX4 retrogene in skeletal muscle triggers significant alterations in transcription and RNA metabolism. We uncovered hundreds of uncharacterized, highly overexpressed RNAs, including antisense and alternative transcripts, and quantified their contribution to translatome and proteome. Re-analysis of expression datasets from patient-derived myotubes and muscle biopsies validated this alternative transcriptome in FSHD patients, adding a reservoir of bona-fide novel molecular actors in a rare disease. Available at https://github.com/nfdata-omics/R2T2P/, R2T2P is a flexible and powerful workflow in modern integrative biology.

bioinformatics↗
bioRxiv2026

MorphoANOVA: Dissecting Histology-Gene Expression Relationships in Spatial Transcriptomics

Spatial transcriptomics (ST) measures the expression of hundreds to thousands of genes within tissue architecture, often accompanied by histology images. However, it remains challenging to systematically characterize which genes exhibit associations with tissue morphology, whether these associations vary spatially, and which genes show additional spatial expression patterns beyond those captured by morphology. Here we introduce MorphoANOVA, a gene-wise statistical framework for characterizing morphology--expression relationships across genes measured by ST. Using nested spatially varying coefficient models and sequential ANOVA, MorphoANOVA assesses slide-wide associations with an H\&E-derived morphology feature, location-specific changes in these associations, and additional spatial variation after accounting for the selected feature. The resulting statistics enable gene prioritization and pathway enrichment analysis, while spatial component maps support the interpretation of individual genes. Simulations demonstrate MorphoANOVA's ability to distinguish the modeled components and recover their spatial patterns. Applications to human cortex and breast cancer identify biological programs associated with different morphology--expression patterns and reveal distinct relationships with cell composition. Across three HER2-positive breast cancer patients, invasive-cancer marker genes consistently exhibit stronger evidence of location-specific morphology associations. MorphoANOVA thus provides a framework for systematically interpreting spatial gene-expression patterns in relation to tissue morphology.

bioinformatics↗
bioRxiv2026

Evaluation effects can rival reported concordance gains in cross-cancer survival prediction

Studies of cross-cancer learning for survival prediction from tumour omics have reported concordance gains of 0.020 and 0.045, but how such gains compare with evaluation effects remains unclear. We examined these effects across 13 TCGA cancers (5,761 patients, 1,526 disease-specific deaths), using five repeats of five-fold cross-validation and paired bootstrap intervals. When model selection did not use test data, our borrowing model gained 0.009 (95% interval 0.001 to 0.016) over its target-fitted reference when cancers received equal weight (post hoc). Random-effects pooling gave a gain of 0.002 (-0.002 to 0.006), with most weight assigned to cancers where the model made little use of the pretrained score. Choosing the fusion weight on test splits raised the apparent equal-weight gain to 0.017. We reimplemented a published method, VAECox, which showed no pretraining gain over random initialisation at the last or validation-selected training step. Choosing each network's best test step, as the published code does, raised concordance by 0.03 to 0.05 across the 13-cancer and ten-cancer overall-survival settings, but barely changed the difference between networks. In a constructed post hoc experiment, choosing the best test step only for the pretrained network changed the equal-weight mean difference from -0.004 to +0.045 (+0.035 to +0.054). Across seven multi-omics comparisons, estimates from single five-fold runs differed from their cancer's five-run mean by at least 0.02 in 11% to 42% of runs. Concordance was about 0.02 lower at held-out tissue source sites. Interpreting a reported gain therefore requires each model's selection rule, variation across repeated partitions, the weighting of cancers and the evaluation population.

bioinformatics↗