The corpus of bioinformatics resources is huge and expanding rapidly, presenting life scientists with a growing challenge in selecting tools that fit the desired purpose. To address this, the European Infrastructure for Biological Information is supporting a systematic approach towards a comprehensive registry of tools and databases for all domains of bioinformatics, provided under a single portal (https://bio.tools). We describe here the practical means by which scientific communities, including individual developers and projects, through major service providers and research infrastructures, can describe their own bioinformatics resources and share these via bio.tools.

Information integration and workflow technologies for data analysis have always been major fields of investigation in bioinformatics. A range of popular workflow suites are available to support analyses in computational biology. Commercial providers tend to offer prepared applications remote to their clients. However, for most academic environments with local expertise, novel data collection techniques or novel data analysis, it is essential to have all the flexibility of open-source tools and open-source workflow descriptions. Workflows in data-driven science such as computational biology have considerably gained in complexity. New tools or new releases with additional features arrive at an enormous pace, and new reference data or concepts for quality control are emerging. A well-abstracted workflow and the exchange of the same across work groups have an enormous impact on the efficiency of research and the further development of the field. High-throughput sequencing adds to the avalanche of data available in the field; efficient computation and, in particular, parallel execution motivate the transition from traditional scripts and Makefiles to workflows. We here review the extant software development and distribution model with a focus on the role of integration testing and discuss the effect of common workflow language on distributions of open-source scientific software to swiftly and reliably provide the tools demanded for the execution of such formally described workflows. It is contended that, alleviated from technical differences for the execution on local machines, clusters or the cloud, communities also gain the technical means to test workflow-driven interaction across several software packages.

The diversity and complexity of bioinformatics resources presents significant challenges to their localisation, deployment and use, creating a need for reliable systems that address these issues. Meanwhile, users demand increasingly usable and integrated ways to access and analyse data, especially within convenient, integrated “workbench” environments. Resource descriptions are the core element of registry and workbench systems, which are used to both help the user find and comprehend available software tools, data resources, and Web Services, and to localise, execute and combine them. The descriptions are, however, hard and expensive to create and maintain, because they are volatile and require an exhaustive knowledge of the described resource, its applicability to biological research, and the data model and syntax used to describe it. We present here the Workbench Integration Enabler , a software component that will ease the integration of bioinformatics resources in a workbench environment, using their description provided by the existing ELIXIR Tools and Data Services Registry.

BACKGROUND: 20 years of improved technology and growing sequences now renders residue-residue contact constraints in large protein families through correlated mutations accurate enough to drive de novo predictions of protein three-dimensional structure. The method EVfold broke new ground using mean-field Direct Coupling Analysis (EVfold-mfDCA); the method PSICOV applied a related concept by estimating a sparse inverse covariance matrix. Both methods (EVfold-mfDCA and PSICOV) are publicly available, but both require too much CPU time for interactive applications. On top, EVfold-mfDCA depends on proprietary software. RESULTS: Here, we present FreeContact, a fast, open source implementation of EVfold-mfDCA and PSICOV. On a test set of 140 proteins, FreeContact was almost eight times faster than PSICOV without decreasing prediction performance. The EVfold-mfDCA implementation of FreeContact was over 220 times faster than PSICOV with negligible performance decrease. EVfold-mfDCA was unavailable for testing due to its dependency on proprietary software. FreeContact is implemented as the free C++ library "libfreecontact", complete with command line tool "freecontact", as well as Perl and Python modules. All components are available as Debian packages. FreeContact supports the BioXSD format for interoperability. CONCLUSIONS: FreeContact provides the opportunity to compute reliable contact predictions in any environment (desktop or cloud).

BACKGROUND: Computational biology comprises a wide range of technologies and approaches. Multiple technologies can be combined to create more powerful workflows if the individuals contributing the data or providing tools for its interpretation can find mutual understanding and consensus. Much conversation and joint investigation are required in order to identify and implement the best approaches. Traditionally, scientific conferences feature talks presenting novel technologies or insights, followed up by informal discussions during coffee breaks. In multi-institution collaborations, in order to reach agreement on implementation details or to transfer deeper insights in a technology and practical skills, a representative of one group typically visits the other. However, this does not scale well when the number of technologies or research groups is large. Conferences have responded to this issue by introducing Birds-of-a-Feather (BoF) sessions, which offer an opportunity for individuals with common interests to intensify their interaction. However, parallel BoF sessions often make it hard for participants to join multiple BoFs and find common ground between the different technologies, and BoFs are generally too short to allow time for participants to program together. RESULTS: This report summarises our experience with computational biology Codefests, Hackathons and Sprints, which are interactive developer meetings. They are structured to reduce the limitations of traditional scientific meetings described above by strengthening the interaction among peers and letting the participants determine the schedule and topics. These meetings are commonly run as loosely scheduled "unconferences" (self-organized identification of participants and topics for meetings) over at least two days, with early introductory talks to welcome and organize contributors, followed by intensive collaborative coding sessions. We summarise some prominent achievements of those meetings and describe differences in how these are organised, how their audience is addressed, and their outreach to their respective communities. CONCLUSIONS: Hackathons, Codefests and Sprints share a stimulating atmosphere that encourages participants to jointly brainstorm and tackle problems of shared interest in a self-driven proactive environment, as well as providing an opportunity for new participants to get involved in collaborative projects.

MOTIVATION: Advancing the search, publication and integration of bioinformatics tools and resources demands consistent machine-understandable descriptions. A comprehensive ontology allowing such descriptions is therefore required. RESULTS: EDAM is an ontology of bioinformatics operations (tool or workflow functions), types of data and identifiers, application domains and data formats. EDAM supports semantic annotation of diverse entities such as Web services, databases, programmatic libraries, standalone tools, interactive applications, data schemas, datasets and publications within bioinformatics. EDAM applies to organizing and finding suitable tools and data and to automating their integration into complex applications or workflows. It includes over 2200 defined concepts and has successfully been used for annotations and implementations. AVAILABILITY: The latest stable version of EDAM is available in OWL format from http://edamontology.org/EDAM.owl and in OBO format from http://edamontology.org/EDAM.obo. It can be viewed online at the NCBO BioPortal and the EBI Ontology Lookup Service. For documentation and license please refer to http://edamontology.org. This article describes version 1.2 available at http://edamontology.org/EDAM_1.2.owl. CONTACT: [email protected].

BACKGROUND: With the recent advances and availability of various high-throughput sequencing technologies, data on many molecular aspects, such as gene regulation, chromatin dynamics, and the three-dimensional organization of DNA, are rapidly being generated in an increasing number of laboratories. The variation in biological context, and the increasingly dispersed mode of data generation, imply a need for precise, interoperable and flexible representations of genomic features through formats that are easy to parse. A host of alternative formats are currently available and in use, complicating analysis and tool development. The issue of whether and how the multitude of formats reflects varying underlying characteristics of data has to our knowledge not previously been systematically treated. RESULTS: We here identify intrinsic distinctions between genomic features, and argue that the distinctions imply that a certain variation in the representation of features as genomic tracks is warranted. Four core informational properties of tracks are discussed: gaps, lengths, values and interconnections. From this we delineate fifteen generic track types. Based on the track type distinctions, we characterize major existing representational formats and find that the track types are not adequately supported by any single format. We also find, in contrast to the XML formats, that none of the existing tabular formats are conveniently extendable to support all track types. We thus propose two unified formats for track data, an improved XML format, BioXSD 1.1, and a new tabular format, GTrack 1.0. CONCLUSIONS: The defined track types are shown to capture relevant distinctions between genomic annotation tracks, resulting in varying representational needs and analysis possibilities. The proposed formats, GTrack 1.0 and BioXSD 1.1, cater to the identified track distinctions and emphasize preciseness, flexibility and parsing convenience.

MOTIVATION: The world-wide community of life scientists has access to a large number of public bioinformatics databases and tools, which are developed and deployed using diverse technologies and designs. More and more of the resources offer programmatic web-service interface. However, efficient use of the resources is hampered by the lack of widely used, standard data-exchange formats for the basic, everyday bioinformatics data types. RESULTS: BioXSD has been developed as a candidate for standard, canonical exchange format for basic bioinformatics data. BioXSD is represented by a dedicated XML Schema and defines syntax for biological sequences, sequence annotations, alignments and references to resources. We have adapted a set of web services to use BioXSD as the input and output format, and implemented a test-case workflow. This demonstrates that the approach is feasible and provides smooth interoperability. Semantics for BioXSD is provided by annotation with the EDAM ontology. We discuss in a separate section how BioXSD relates to other initiatives and approaches, including existing standards and the Semantic Web. AVAILABILITY: The BioXSD 1.0 XML Schema is freely available at http://www.bioxsd.org/BioXSD-1.0.xsd under the Creative Commons BY-ND 3.0 license. The http://bioxsd.org web page offers documentation, examples of data in BioXSD format, example workflows with source codes in common programming languages, an updated list of compatible web services and tools and a repository of feature requests from the community.