Semantic workflows for benchmark challenges: Enhancing comparability, reusability and reproducibility

Benchmark challenges, such as the Critical Assessment of Structure Prediction (CASP) and Dialogue for Reverse Engineering Assessments and Methods (DREAM) have been instrumental in driving the development of bioinformatics methods. Typically, challenges are posted, and then competitors perform a prediction based upon blinded test data. Challengers then submit their answers to a central server where they are scored. Recent efforts to automate these challenges have been enabled by systems in which challengers submit Docker containers, a unit of software that packages up code and all of its dependencies, to be run on the cloud. Despite their incredible value for providing an unbiased test-bed for the bioinformatics community, there remain opportunities to further enhance the potential impact of benchmark challenges. Specifically, current approaches only evaluate end-to-end performance; it is nearly impossible to directly compare methodologies or parameters. Furthermore, the scientific community cannot easily reuse challengers’ approaches, due to lack of specifics, ambiguity in tools and parameters as well as problems in sharing and maintenance. Lastly, the intuition behind why particular steps are used is not captured, as the proposed workflows are not explicitly defined, making it cumbersome to understand the flow and utilization of data. Here we introduce an approach to overcome these limitations based upon the WINGS semantic workflow system. Specifically, WINGS enables researchers to submit complete semantic workflows as challenge submissions. By submitting entries as workflows, it then becomes possible to compare not just the results and performance of a challenger, but also the methodology employed. This is particularly important when dozens of challenge entries may use nearly identical tools, but with only subtle changes in parameters (and radical differences in results). WINGS uses a component driven workflow design and offers intelligent parameter and data selection by reasoning about data characteristics. This proves to be especially critical in bioinformatics workflows where using default or incorrect parameter values is prone to drastically altering results. Different challenge entries may be readily compared through the use of abstract workflows, which also facilitate reuse. WINGS is housed on a cloud based setup, which stores data, dependencies and workflows for easy sharing and utility. It also has the ability to scale workflow executions using distributed computing through the Pegasus workflow execution system. We demonstrate the application of this architecture to the DREAM proteogenomic challenge.

[1]  Wei Shi,et al.  featureCounts: an efficient general purpose program for assigning sequence reads to genomic features , 2013, Bioinform..

[2]  Yolanda Gil,et al.  Use of semantic workflows to enhance transparency and reproducibility in clinical omics , 2015, Genome Medicine.

[3]  Mark D. Robinson,et al.  edgeR: a Bioconductor package for differential expression analysis of digital gene expression data , 2009, Bioinform..

[4]  Paul T. Groth,et al.  Wings: Intelligent Workflow-Based Design of Computational Experiments , 2011, IEEE Intelligent Systems.

[5]  Brendan MacLean,et al.  CPTAC Assay Portal: a repository of targeted proteomic assays , 2014, Nature Methods.

[6]  Joshua M. Stuart,et al.  Combining tumor genome simulation with crowdsourcing to benchmark somatic single-nucleotide-variant detection , 2015, Nature Methods.

[7]  Xiuzhen Huang,et al.  DNAp: A Pipeline for DNA-seq Data Analysis , 2018, Scientific Reports.

[8]  James Cheney,et al.  The W3C PROV family of specifications for modelling provenance metadata , 2013, EDBT '13.

[9]  Cole Trapnell,et al.  TopHat2: accurate alignment of transcriptomes in the presence of insertions, deletions and gene fusions , 2013, Genome Biology.

[10]  A. Tramontano,et al.  Critical assessment of methods of protein structure prediction (CASP)—Round XII , 2018, Proteins.

[11]  K. Tomczak,et al.  The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA): an immeasurable source of knowledge , 2015, Contemporary oncology.

[12]  J. Mesirov,et al.  GenePattern 2.0 , 2006, Nature Genetics.

[13]  David R. Kelley,et al.  Differential gene and transcript expression analysis of RNA-seq experiments with TopHat and Cufflinks , 2012, Nature Protocols.

[14]  Sahil R. Kalra,et al.  Big Challenges? Big Data … , 2015 .

[15]  V. Marx Biology: The big challenges of big data , 2013, Nature.

[16]  M. Schatz,et al.  Big Data: Astronomical or Genomical? , 2015, PLoS biology.

[17]  Dirk Merkel,et al.  Docker: lightweight Linux containers for consistent development and deployment , 2014 .

[18]  Catarina Eloy,et al.  Classification of breast cancer histology images using Convolutional Neural Networks , 2017, PloS one.

[19]  Thomas R. Gingeras,et al.  STAR: ultrafast universal RNA-seq aligner , 2013, Bioinform..

[20]  Fidel Ramírez,et al.  deepTools: a flexible platform for exploring deep-sequencing data , 2014, Nucleic Acids Res..

[21]  Yolanda Gil,et al.  Wings for Pegasus: Creating Large-Scale Scientific Applications Using Semantic Representations of Computational Workflows , 2007, AAAI.

[22]  Jeffrey R. Whiteaker,et al.  Proteogenomic characterization of human colon and rectal cancer , 2014, Nature.