Person: Chapman, Brad
Email Address
AA Acceptance Date
Birth Date
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Job Title
Last Name
First Name
Name
Search Results
Publication Bio.Phylo: A Unified Toolkit for Processing, Analyzing and Visualizing Phylogenetic Trees in Biopython
(BioMed Central, 2012) Talevich, Eric; Invergo, Brandon M; Cock, Peter JA; Chapman, BradBackground: Ongoing innovation in phylogenetics and evolutionary biology has been accompanied by a proliferation of software tools, data formats, analytical techniques and web servers. This brings with it the challenge of integrating phylogenetic and other related biological data found in a wide variety of formats, and underlines the need for reusable software that can read, manipulate and transform this information into the various forms required to build computational pipelines. Results: We built a Python software library for working with phylogenetic data that is tightly integrated with Biopython, a broad-ranging toolkit for computational biology. Our library, Bio.Phylo, is highly interoperable with existing libraries, tools and standards, and is capable of parsing common file formats for phylogenetic trees, performing basic transformations and manipulations, attaching rich annotations, and visualizing trees. We unified the modules for working with the standard file formats Newick, NEXUS and phyloXML behind a consistent and simple API, providing a common set of functionality independent of the data source. Conclusions: Bio.Phylo meets a growing need in bioinformatics for working with heterogeneous types of phylogenetic data. By supporting interoperability with multiple file formats and leveraging existing Biopython features, this library simplifies the construction of phylogenetic workflows. We also provide examples of the benefits of building a community around a shared open-source project. Bio.Phylo is included with Biopython, available through the Biopython website, http://biopython.org.
Publication Community-driven development for computational biology at Sprints, Hackathons and Codefests
(BioMed Central, 2014) Möller, Steffen; Afgan, Enis; Banck, Michael; Bonnal, Raoul JP; Booth, Timothy; Chilton, John; Cock, Peter JA; Gumbel, Markus; Harris, Nomi; Holland, Richard; Kalaš, Matúš; Kaján, László; Kibukawa, Eri; Powel, David R; Prins, Pjotr; Quinn, Jacqueline; Sallou, Olivier; Strozzi, Francesco; Seemann, Torsten; Sloggett, Clare; Soiland-Reyes, Stian; Spooner, William; Steinbiss, Sascha; Tille, Andreas; Travis, Anthony J; Guimera, Roman Valls; Katayama, Toshiaki; Chapman, BradBackground: 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.