Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26904094›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in genetics2016

Comparison of Acceleration Techniques for Selected Low-Level Bioinformatics Operations.

Daniel Langenkämper, Tobias Jakobi, Dustin Feld, Lukas Jelonek, Alexander Goesmann, Tim W Nattkemper

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in genetics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Daniel LangenkämperBiodata Mining Group, Faculty of Technology, Bielefeld University Bielefeld, Germany.
Tobias JakobiSektion für Bioinformatik und Systemkardiologie, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg Heidelberg, Germany.
Dustin FeldFraunhofer SCAI Sankt Augustin, Germany.
Lukas JelonekBioinformatik und Systembiologie, Justus Liebig University Gießen, Germany.
Alexander GoesmannBioinformatik und Systembiologie, Justus Liebig University Gießen, Germany.
Tim W NattkemperBiodata Mining Group, Faculty of Technology, Bielefeld University Bielefeld, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Within the recent years clock rates of modern processors stagnated while the demand for computing power continued to grow. This applied particularly for the fields of life sciences and bioinformatics, where new technologies keep on creating rapidly growing piles of raw data with increasing speed. The number of cores per processor increased in an attempt to compensate for slight increments of clock rates. This technological shift demands changes in software development, especially in the field of high performance computing where parallelization techniques are gaining in importance due to the pressing issue of large sized datasets generated by e.g., modern genomics. This paper presents an overview of state-of-the-art manual and automatic acceleration techniques and lists some applications employing these in different areas of sequence informatics. Furthermore, we provide examples for automatic acceleration of two use cases to show typical problems and gains of transforming a serial application to a parallel one. The paper should aid the reader in deciding for a certain techniques for the problem at hand. We compare four different state-of-the-art automatic acceleration approaches (OpenMP, PluTo-SICA, PPCG, and OpenACC). Their performance as well as their applicability for selected use cases is discussed. While optimizations targeting the CPU worked better in the complex k-mer use case, optimizers for Graphics Processing Units (GPUs) performed better in the matrix multiplication example. But performance is only superior at a certain problem size due to data migration overhead. We show that automatic code parallelization is feasible with current compiler software and yields significant increases in execution speed. Automatic optimizers for CPU are mature and usually no additional manual adjustment is required. In contrast, some automatic parallelizers targeting GPUs still lack maturity and are limited to simple statements and structures.

Indexed as

automaticbioinformaticsFPGAGPUhigh throughputmulti-coreparallelizationsequence analysis

Identifiers

PMID26904094
PMCPMC4748744

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.