Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31830916›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2019

uap: reproducible and robust HTS data analysis.

Christoph Kämpf, Michael Specht, Alexander Scholz, Sven-Holger Puppel, Gero Doose, Kristin Reiche, Jana Schor, Jörg Hackermüller

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Computational Methods for the Discovery and Annotation of Viral Integrations.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Mouse Retinal Organoid Growth and Maintenance in Longer-Term Culture.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2021
    Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

8 authors.

Christoph KämpfYoung Investigators Group Bioinformatics and Transcriptomics, Department Molecular Systems Biology, Helmholtz Center for Environmental Research - UFZ, Permoserstraße 15, Leipzig, 04318, Germany.
Michael SpechtBioinformatics Unit, Department of Diagnostics, Fraunhofer Institute for Cell Therapy and Immunology, Perlickstraße 1, Leipzig, 04103, Germany.
Alexander ScholzBioinformatics Unit, Department of Diagnostics, Fraunhofer Institute for Cell Therapy and Immunology, Perlickstraße 1, Leipzig, 04103, Germany.
Sven-Holger PuppelBioinformatics Unit, Department of Diagnostics, Fraunhofer Institute for Cell Therapy and Immunology, Perlickstraße 1, Leipzig, 04103, Germany.
Gero DooseBioinformatics Department, Universität Leipzig, Härtelstraße 16-18, Leipzig, 04107, Germany.
Kristin ReicheBioinformatics Unit, Department of Diagnostics, Fraunhofer Institute for Cell Therapy and Immunology, Perlickstraße 1, Leipzig, 04103, Germany.
Jana SchorYoung Investigators Group Bioinformatics and Transcriptomics, Department Molecular Systems Biology, Helmholtz Center for Environmental Research - UFZ, Permoserstraße 15, Leipzig, 04318, Germany. jana.schor@ufz.de.
Jörg HackermüllerYoung Investigators Group Bioinformatics and Transcriptomics, Department Molecular Systems Biology, Helmholtz Center for Environmental Research - UFZ, Permoserstraße 15, Leipzig, 04318, Germany. joerg.hackermueller@ufz.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4920-7072

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA lack of reproducibility has been repeatedly criticized in computational research. High throughput sequencing (HTS) data analysis is a complex multi-step process. For most of the steps a range of bioinformatic tools is available and for most tools manifold parameters need to be set. Due to this complexity, HTS data analysis is particularly prone to reproducibility and consistency issues. We have defined four criteria that in our opinion ensure a minimal degree of reproducible research for HTS data analysis. A series of workflow management systems is available for assisting complex multi-step data analyses. However, to the best of our knowledge, none of the currently available work flow management systems satisfies all four criteria for reproducible HTS analysis.

resultsHere we present uap, a workflow management system dedicated to robust, consistent, and reproducible HTS data analysis. uap is optimized for the application to omics data, but can be easily extended to other complex analyses. It is available under the GNU GPL v3 license at https://github.com/yigbt/uap.

conclusionsuap is a freely available tool that enables researchers to easily adhere to reproducible research principles for HTS data analyses.

Indexed as

Data AnalysisHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingSoftwareAlgorithmsComputational BiologyGenomeReproducibility of ResultsTranscriptomeReproducible researchSequencing data analysisWork-flow management

Identifiers

PMID31830916
PMCPMC6909466

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.