MOTIVATION: Millions of high-throughput, molecular datasets have been shared in public repositories. Researchers can reuse such data to validate their own findings and explore novel questions. A frequent goal is to find multiple datasets that address similar research topics and to either combine them directly or integrate inferences from them. However, a major challenge is finding relevant datasets due to the vast number of candidates, inconsistencies in their descriptions, and a lack of semantic annotations. This challenge is first among the FAIR principles for scientific data. Here we focus on dataset discovery within Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO), a repository containing 100 000 s of data series. GEO supports queries based on keywords, ontology terms, and other annotations. However, reviewing these results is time-consuming and tedious, and it often misses relevant datasets. RESULTS: We hypothesized that language models could address this problem by summarizing dataset descriptions as numeric representations (embeddings). Assuming a researcher has previously found some relevant datasets, we evaluated the potential to find additional relevant datasets. For six human medical conditions, we used 30 models to generate embeddings for datasets that human curators had previously associated with the conditions and identified other datasets with the most similar descriptions. This approach was often, but not always, more effective than GEO's search engine. The top-performing models were trained on general corpora, used contrastive-learning strategies, and used relatively large embeddings. Our findings suggest that language models have the potential to improve dataset discovery, likely in combination with existing search tools. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: Our analysis code and a Web-based tool that enables others to use our methodology are available from https://github.com/srp33/GEO_NLP and https://github.com/srp33/GEOfinder3.0, respectively.

Computer programming is a fundamental tool for life scientists, allowing them to carry out essential research tasks. However, despite various educational efforts, learning to write code can be a challenging endeavor for students and researchers in life-sciences disciplines. Recent advances in artificial intelligence have made it possible to translate human-language prompts to functional code, raising questions about whether these technologies can aid (or replace) life scientists' efforts to write code. Using 184 programming exercises from an introductory-bioinformatics course, we evaluated the extent to which one such tool-OpenAI's ChatGPT-could successfully complete programming tasks. ChatGPT solved 139 (75.5%) of the exercises on its first attempt. For the remaining exercises, we provided natural-language feedback to the model, prompting it to try different approaches. Within 7 or fewer attempts, ChatGPT solved 179 (97.3%) of the exercises. These findings have implications for life-sciences education and research. Instructors may need to adapt their pedagogical approaches and assessment techniques to account for these new capabilities that are available to the general public. For some programming tasks, researchers may be able to work in collaboration with machine-learning models to produce functional code.

By classifying patients into subgroups, clinicians can provide more effective care than using a uniform approach for all patients. Such subgroups might include patients with a particular disease subtype, patients with a good (or poor) prognosis, or patients most (or least) likely to respond to a particular therapy. Transcriptomic measurements reflect the downstream effects of genomic and epigenomic variations. However, high-throughput technologies generate thousands of measurements per patient, and complex dependencies exist among genes, so it may be infeasible to classify patients using traditional statistical models. Machine-learning classification algorithms can help with this problem. However, hundreds of classification algorithms exist-and most support diverse hyperparameters-so it is difficult for researchers to know which are optimal for gene-expression biomarkers. We performed a benchmark comparison, applying 52 classification algorithms to 50 gene-expression datasets (143 class variables). We evaluated algorithms that represent diverse machine-learning methodologies and have been implemented in general-purpose, open-source, machine-learning libraries. When available, we combined clinical predictors with gene-expression data. Additionally, we evaluated the effects of performing hyperparameter optimization and feature selection using nested cross validation. Kernel- and ensemble-based algorithms consistently outperformed other types of classification algorithms; however, even the top-performing algorithms performed poorly in some cases. Hyperparameter optimization and feature selection typically improved predictive performance, and univariate feature-selection algorithms typically outperformed more sophisticated methods. Together, our findings illustrate that algorithm performance varies considerably when other factors are held constant and thus that algorithm selection is a critical step in biomarker studies.

BACKGROUND: When analyzing DNA sequence data of an individual, knowing which nucleotide was inherited from each parent can be beneficial when trying to identify certain types of DNA variants. Mendelian inheritance logic can be used to accurately phase (haplotype) the majority (67-83%) of an individual's heterozygous nucleotide positions when genotypes are available for both parents (trio). However, when all members of a trio are heterozygous at a position, Mendelian inheritance logic cannot be used to phase. For such positions, a computational phasing algorithm can be used. Existing phasing algorithms use a haplotype reference panel, sequencing reads, and/or parental genotypes to phase an individual; however, they are limited in that they can only phase certain types of variants, require a specific genotype build, require large amounts of storage capacity, and/or require long run times. We created trioPhaser to address these challenges. RESULTS: trioPhaser uses gVCF files from an individual and their parents as initial input, and then outputs a phased VCF file. Input trio data are first phased using Mendelian inheritance logic. Then, the positions that cannot be phased using inheritance information alone are phased by the SHAPEIT4 phasing algorithm. Using whole-genome sequencing data of 52 trios, we show that trioPhaser, on average, increases the total number of phased positions by 21.0% and 10.5%, respectively, when compared to the number of positions that SHAPEIT4 or Mendelian inheritance logic can phase when either is used alone. In addition, we show that the accuracy of the phased calls output by trioPhaser are similar to linked-read and read-backed phasing. CONCLUSION: trioPhaser is a containerized software tool that uses both Mendelian inheritance logic and SHAPEIT4 to phase trios when gVCF files are available. By implementing both phasing methods, more variant positions are phased compared to what either method is able to phase alone.

MOTIVATION: Using mass spectrometry to measure the concentration and turnover of the individual proteins in a proteome, enables the calculation of individual synthesis and degradation rates for each protein. Software to analyze concentration is readily available, but software to analyze turnover is lacking. Data analysis workflows typically don't access the full breadth of information about instrument precision and accuracy that is present in each peptide isotopic envelope measurement. This method utilizes both isotope distribution and changes in neutromer spacing, which benefits the analysis of both concentration and turnover. RESULTS: We have developed a data analysis tool, DeuteRater, to measure protein turnover from metabolic D 2 O labeling. DeuteRater uses theoretical predictions for label-dependent change in isotope abundance and inter-peak (neutromer) spacing within the isotope envelope to calculate protein turnover rate. We have also used these metrics to evaluate the accuracy and precision of peptide measurements and thereby determined the optimal data acquisition parameters of different instruments, as well as the effect of data processing steps. We show that these combined measurements can be used to remove noise and increase confidence in the protein turnover measurement for each protein. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: Source code and ReadMe for Python 2 and 3 versions of DeuteRater are available at https://github.com/JC-Price/DeuteRater . Data is at https://chorusproject.org/pages/index.html project number 1147. Critical Intermediate calculation files provided as Tables S3 and S4. Software has only been tested on Windows machines. CONTACT: [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

MOTIVATION: The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) RNA-Sequencing data are used widely for research. TCGA provides 'Level 3' data, which have been processed using a pipeline specific to that resource. However, we have found using experimentally derived data that this pipeline produces gene-expression values that vary considerably across biological replicates. In addition, some RNA-Sequencing analysis tools require integer-based read counts, which are not provided with the Level 3 data. As an alternative, we have reprocessed the data for 9264 tumor and 741 normal samples across 24 cancer types using the Rsubread package. We have also collated corresponding clinical data for these samples. We provide these data as a community resource. RESULTS: We compared TCGA samples processed using either pipeline and found that the Rsubread pipeline produced fewer zero-expression genes and more consistent expression levels across replicate samples than the TCGA pipeline. Additionally, we used a genomic-signature approach to estimate HER2 (ERBB2) activation status for 662 breast-tumor samples and found that the Rsubread data resulted in stronger predictions of HER2 pathway activity. Finally, we used data from both pipelines to classify 575 lung cancer samples based on histological type. This analysis identified various non-coding RNA that may influence lung-cancer histology. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: The RNA-Sequencing and clinical data can be downloaded from Gene Expression Omnibus (accession number GSE62944). Scripts and code that were used to process and analyze the data are available from https://github.com/srp33/TCGA_RNASeq_Clinical. CONTACT: [email protected] or [email protected] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary material is available at Bioinformatics online.

MOTIVATION: Although gene-expression signature-based biomarkers are often developed for clinical diagnosis, many promising signatures fail to replicate during validation. One major challenge is that biological samples used to generate and validate the signature are often from heterogeneous biological contexts-controlled or in vitro samples may be used to generate the signature, but patient samples may be used for validation. In addition, systematic technical biases from multiple genome-profiling platforms often mask true biological variation. Addressing such challenges will enable us to better elucidate disease mechanisms and provide improved guidance for personalized therapeutics. RESULTS: Here, we present a pathway profiling toolkit, Adaptive Signature Selection and InteGratioN (ASSIGN), which enables robust and context-specific pathway analyses by efficiently capturing pathway activity in heterogeneous sets of samples and across profiling technologies. The ASSIGN framework is based on a flexible Bayesian factor analysis approach that allows for simultaneous profiling of multiple correlated pathways and for the adaptation of pathway signatures into specific disease. We demonstrate the robustness and versatility of ASSIGN in estimating pathway activity in simulated data, cell lines perturbed pathways and in primary tissues samples including The Cancer Genome Atlas breast carcinoma samples and liver samples exposed to genotoxic carcinogens. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: Software for our approach is available for download at: http://www.bioconductor.org/packages/release/bioc/html/ASSIGN.html and https://github.com/wevanjohnson/ASSIGN.