Developments in Bioinformatics ≥ Interview Three Pioneers at the Cradle

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Load more

INTERFACE Special | November 2011 1 ≥ NBIC Special Rapidly growing bioinformatics community DEVELOPMENTS IN BIOINFORMATICS ≥ Interview three pioneers At the cradle Special | November 2011 Netherlands Bioinformatics Centre NBIC INTERFACE 2 Content Special | November 2011 Content EDITORIAL Interface Special Issue 3 INTERvieW The three pioneers who connected 4 two worlds NBIC Consortium 7 Toolbox 20 Bioinformatics Network 39 NBIC Research Programme, BioRange 8 Support Programme, BioAssist 14 Education Programme, BioWise 22 Dissemination & Exploitation, NBICommons 32 BIOinFORMATics Life Sciences & Health 11 IN THE FieLD OF Horticulture 17 Food & Nutrition 25 Industrial Biotechnology 35 THeses/ John van Dam 13 PORTRAITS Umesh Nandal 27 Anand Gaval 31 Jules Kerssemakers 37 RSG network 38 INTERNATIONAL Ewan Birney 18 VisiON (Cambridge, UK) Philip Bourne 19 (University of California, San Diego) Burkhard Rost 28 (TU Munich, Germany) Amos Bairoch 29 (University of Geneva, Switzerland) NBIC INTERFACE Editorial Special | November 2011 3 Interface Special Issue Board of directors ioinformatics is driving the convergence of biology B and technology disciplines, skills and infrastructures and is key to current data-intensive life sciences R&D. The broad field is under accelerated international development as biological systems turn out to be more complex than previously realised, and data sources are growing rapidly due to the ongoing flow of new key technologies. Re-use of large and information-rich datasets at an international scale is an emerging challenge. In fact, for any data driven research programme in contemporary From left to right: Jaap Heringa, scientific director of bioinformatics life sciences, bioinformatics has become indispensible. education; Ruben Kok, managing director; Barend Mons, scientific director of support & external relations; Marcel Reinders, scientific director of bioinformatics research. More often than not, the capacity and expertise needed to tackle bioinformatics challenges exceed the scope to comment on the latest developments in bioinformatics of the individual data generating institutes. To avoid within the scope of the data-intensive life sciences. stagnation of discoveries and to seize the innovation potential of its vital life sciences R&D sectors, the A list of theses combined with some portraits of our Netherlands needs a strong bioinformatics knowledge junior researchers has been included to celebrate their infrastructure. It is our mission to create an internationally key role in NBIC. They have contributed greatly to the operating centre of excellence in bioinformatics research scientific productivity of the NBIC groups, and they and education that supports life sciences R&D. have been key to the success of a broad range of our partner’s biology projects. As a growing community of In this special issue of Interface you will discover what our first generation PhD students, many have found the NBIC partners have achieved so far. Read about our one another through the Dutch Regional Student Group activities in research, support, education, dissemination, of the International Society for Computational Biology, and about the examples of where this has led to exploitation a highly active group in the international field. Well of research output by entrepreneurial bioinformaticians. trained within the NBIC faculty, the group of young NBIC All topics are illustrated with facts and figures, example scientists constitute the bioinformaticians of our near projects and comments from our collaborating biology future and will no doubt play an important role in future partners. In addition, as a reference for you to judge how discovery research. Hopefully, they will also bring the far we have come in realising our mission three pioneers lively atmosphere in Dutch bioinformatics with them in the Dutch field of bioinformatics look back on how NBIC to their jobs in academic and industrial research. started. We have invited some international colleagues Ruben Kok COLOPHON TEXT WRITING AND EDITING CONCEPT AND REALISATION Esther Thole Marian van Opstal Interface is published by the Netherlands Marga van Zundert Bèta Communicaties, The Hague Bioinformatics Centre (NBIC). The magazine Bo Blanckenburg aims to be an interface between developers Astrid van de Graaf PRINTING and users of bioinformatics applications. Marian van Opstal Bestenzet, Zoetermeer Netherlands Bioinformatics Centre INFOGRAPHICS DISCLAIMER 260 NBIC Thijs Unger Although this publication has been prepared P.O. Box 9101 with the greatest possible care, NBIC 6500 HB Nijmegen PHOTOGRAPHY cannot accept liability for any errors it t: +31 (0)24 36 19500 (office) Thijs Rooimans may contain. f: +31 (0)24 89 01798 Ivar Pel e: [email protected] iStockphoto To (un)subscribe to ‘Interface’ please send w: http://www.nbic.nl Shutterstock an e-mail with your full name, organisation and address to [email protected] EdITORIAL BOARD NBIC DESIGN AND LAY-OUT Marc van Driel, Femke Francissen Clever Franke, Utrecht Celia van Gelder, Karin van Haren t4design, Delft Rob Hooft Copyright NBIC 2011 NBIC INTERFACE 4 Founders Special | November 2011 The three pioneers who connected two worlds he biologists and computer scientists These three men stood at the cradle of NBIC, the had chosen seats at different tables, Netherlands Bioinformatics Centre, the Dutch network of and they talked in different languages. bioinformatics experts active in research, education and Jacob de Vlieg, one of the three pioneers support. How did they become involved, when and why? Tof the Netherlands Bioinformatics Centre, What were their roles? What did they learn? What have remembers the beginning of Dutch bioinformatics they enjoyed, and what has disappointed? And how do they vividly. “We brought two worlds together.” picture the future of bioinformatics in the Netherlands? THE beginning In 1999, Gert Vriend returned to the The secret of the team has to be that they complement Netherlands from Heidelberg’s EMBL to establish and lead each other so well. Because, apart from being scientists, the Centre for Molecular and Biomolecular Informatics the three pioneers of the successful Netherlands (CMBI) in Nijmegen. Vriend reminisces: “One of my tasks Bioinformatics Centre (NBIC) almost seem to come was to set up a national Dutch bioinformatics centre. It from different planets. The first is Gert Vriend, a highly was kind of spectacular because while we were working creative biochemist and for many the face of Dutch on it the project became bigger and bigger in terms of bioinformatics. His natural habitat is his laboratory, budget. But it also became increasingly troublesome working with sleeves rolled-up on model building and because everyone wanted to get aboard and people began structure determination. Then there is Bob Hertzberger, to pull strings. I saw the best and the worst of my scientific a high-energy physicist by education. The high point of colleagues in those days.” Bob Hertzberger was asked his scientific career was at CERN in the early 1980s, when to assist Vriend in calming the hornets’ nest. He believes he worked with then future Nobel Prize winners Carlo that building an institute like NBIC above all requires a Rubbia and Simon van der Meer on the discovery of W clever architect, because the trick is in structuring the and Z particles. He has been retired since 2006, but his projects in such a way that everyone is at their best place. home is a busy place with scientists walking in and out Hertzberger observes: “People may say that I’m short- for good advice. Jacob de Vlieg, the man with the suit, tempered, but when scientists share my goal, I can be a completes the trio of NBIC pioneers. He adds the business very patient listener and puzzle together all the wishes.” touch, having worked for over twenty years at Unilever Jacob de Vlieg joined NBIC’s pioneering team as the and Organon Research. Today he is the busy CEO of the chairman of the NWO research programme BioMolecular recently established eScience Centre in Amsterdam. Informatics, which was to be merged into the new research Gert Vriend “It was kind of spectacular because NBIC became bigger and bigger” NBIC INTERFACE Founders Special | November 2011 5 Jacob de Vlieg “We have brought two worlds together” centre. “The Dutch industry saw great potential in the NBIC’s structure and to compile NBIC’s applications emerging field of bioinformatics, and I was very eager to for funding. Vriend recalls: “We had fierce, but good join the scientific advisory board. But I broke out in a cold discussions. Writing the proposals took an awful lot of sweat at our first meeting with the field. Biologists and time but in the end we succeeded in shepherding them computer scientists had chosen seats at different tables, through all the procedures.” One notable hurdle to be and real communication was hard to achieve; they talked in taken was to convince the CPB, the Netherlands Bureau different languages.” for Economic Policy Analysis, to assign budgets from the Dutch natural gas revenues (BSIK) to the new field of THE WORK According to De Vlieg it was the ‘wild days’ bioinformatics. Vriend elaborates: “The competition was of bioinformatics; the sheep had still to be separated incredibly diverse; we were, for example, competing with from the goats. “Some biologists wanted the computer a plan to drill under the North Pole ice.” The commission scientists to build websites for them; they really had was also very different from the scientific boards Vriend no clue what bioinformatics was about. Therefore, it had dealt with before. “I was very happy that we had Appie was even more important to formulate our targets and Reuver of IBM in our delegation; he spoke their language.” goals precisely, not only those for the scientific projects, Above all Hertzberger remembers a very interesting time. but also those for the educational programme and the The field of biology was quite new to him but immediately computational services that NBIC would encompass.” For caught his interest. When he was asked to become the some months, Gert Vriend, Bob Hertzberger and others first director of NBIC in 2001, he was easily convinced.
Recommended publications
  • The 7Th White Coat Ceremony at SSPPS by Binh Tran, Pharmd

    The 7Th White Coat Ceremony at SSPPS by Binh Tran, Pharmd

    The 7th White Coat Ceremony at SSPPS By Binh Tran, PharmD The White Coat Ceremony at the Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences (SSPPS) on September 25th held special meaning as the University of California - San Diego celebrates its 50th Anniversary this year. SSPPS faculty, alumni, student pharmacists, the incoming class of 2014, their families and their friends listened to Dean Palmer Taylor’s welcoming address in the spacious Health Sciences auditorium modeled with panels made of eucalyptus wood. Dr Rita Shane, Director of Pharmacy Services at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and Assistant Dean of Clinical Pharmacy at the UCSF School of Pharmacy delivered an energizing speech on The Power of Differentiation: Will you be a Brand or Generic? Attributes mentioned were competency, responsibility and accountability, intellectual curiosity, being able to seize opportunities, and establishing credibility. Dr. Anthony Manoguerra, Associate Dean for Student Affairs, reported that the class of 2014’s grade point average of 3.71 broke the record set by the previous class which averaged 3.70. The White Coat hooding by Dean Taylor was a moving ceremony with Justine Abella being last due to a recent foot injury. The class recited the Pharmacist’s Oath, which brought back memories of our own experiences. The Student Welcome by second- year student, Ammar Zanial, was heartfelt and reminiscent of his comments during pharmacy conference class. Little did I know at the time that the student pharmacist who volunteered at many outreaches in the community and helped backstage during Cultural Fusion Night was the President of his class. In closing, Dean Taylor commented on the ingeniousness of the class when he observed them tacitly move their seats in order to step closer to the stage.
  • Are You an Invited Speaker? a Bibliometric Analysis of Elite Groups for Scholarly Events in Bioinformatics

    Are You an Invited Speaker? a Bibliometric Analysis of Elite Groups for Scholarly Events in Bioinformatics

    Are You an Invited Speaker? A Bibliometric Analysis of Elite Groups for Scholarly Events in Bioinformatics Senator Jeong, Sungin Lee, and Hong-Gee Kim Biomedical Knowledge Engineering Laboratory, Seoul National University, 28–22 YeonGeon Dong, Jongno Gu, Seoul 110–749, Korea. E-mail: {senator, sunginlee, hgkim}@snu.ac.kr Participating in scholarly events (e.g., conferences, work- evaluation, but it would be hard to claim that they have pro- shops, etc.) as an elite-group member such as an orga- vided comprehensive lists of evaluation measurements. This nizing committee chair or member, program committee article aims not to provide such lists but to add to the current chair or member, session chair, invited speaker, or award winner is beneficial to a researcher’s career develop- practices an alternative metric that complements existing per- ment.The objective of this study is to investigate whether formance measures to give a more comprehensive picture of elite-group membership for scholarly events is represen- scholars’ performance. tative of scholars’ prominence, and which elite group is By one definition (Jeong, 2008), a scholarly event is the most prestigious. We collected data about 15 global “a sequentially and spatially organized collection of schol- (excluding regional) bioinformatics scholarly events held in 2007. We sampled (via stratified random sampling) ars’ interactions with the intention of delivering and shar- participants from elite groups in each event. Then, bib- ing knowledge, exchanging research ideas, and performing liometric indicators (total citations and h index) of seven related activities.” As such, scholarly events are communica- elite groups and a non-elite group, consisting of authors tion channels from which our new evaluation tool can draw who submitted at least one paper to an event but were its supporting evidence.
  • Your Scientific Reputation Class Slides

    Your Scientific Reputation Class Slides

    Your Scientific Reputation and Being a Responsible Member of Society Peter D Sottile, MD October 2020 • Silence personal devices. • Stay muted when not talking. • Set up in a quiet location. Housekeeping: Zoom • Remain attentive. Avoid checking Etiquette: email/phone/web. • Use the Chat function to ask questions or get technical help. • Use your full name, not an alias. Receiving credit for attendance: To satisfy the NIH Requirement for Instruction in the Responsible Conduct of Research, the following are required in order to receive credit for attendance: Attend the full 90 minutes of the training. Attending any 8 out of the 9 RCR seminars we offer will satisfy the NIH requirement. Keep your video camera on throughout the session. NIH requirements for RCR training specify face- to-face discussion. Participate interactively throughout the session. Participate in discussions, respond to polls, and sign the attendance sheet (link will be distributed in the Chat). Raise your Hand to participate in discussions: In order to participate in discussions, raise your hand. Try it now! • Click “Participants” at the bottom of your screen. • Click “Raise Hand” in the popup window. • Click “Lower Hand” to stop raising your hand. 3 Objectives: • Explain why a good scientific reputation is important in academia • Describe the factors that contribute to a good scientific reputation • Identify the components to being a responsible member of the scientific community • Describe threats that may harm one’s scientific reputation, and responses to challenges
  • Annual Scientific Report 2011 Annual Scientific Report 2011 Designed and Produced by Pickeringhutchins Ltd

    Annual Scientific Report 2011 Annual Scientific Report 2011 Designed and Produced by Pickeringhutchins Ltd

    European Bioinformatics Institute EMBL-EBI Annual Scientific Report 2011 Annual Scientific Report 2011 Designed and Produced by PickeringHutchins Ltd www.pickeringhutchins.com EMBL member states: Austria, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom. Associate member state: Australia EMBL-EBI is a part of the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL) EMBL-EBI EMBL-EBI EMBL-EBI EMBL-European Bioinformatics Institute Wellcome Trust Genome Campus, Hinxton Cambridge CB10 1SD United Kingdom Tel. +44 (0)1223 494 444, Fax +44 (0)1223 494 468 www.ebi.ac.uk EMBL Heidelberg Meyerhofstraße 1 69117 Heidelberg Germany Tel. +49 (0)6221 3870, Fax +49 (0)6221 387 8306 www.embl.org [email protected] EMBL Grenoble 6, rue Jules Horowitz, BP181 38042 Grenoble, Cedex 9 France Tel. +33 (0)476 20 7269, Fax +33 (0)476 20 2199 EMBL Hamburg c/o DESY Notkestraße 85 22603 Hamburg Germany Tel. +49 (0)4089 902 110, Fax +49 (0)4089 902 149 EMBL Monterotondo Adriano Buzzati-Traverso Campus Via Ramarini, 32 00015 Monterotondo (Rome) Italy Tel. +39 (0)6900 91402, Fax +39 (0)6900 91406 © 2012 EMBL-European Bioinformatics Institute All texts written by EBI-EMBL Group and Team Leaders. This publication was produced by the EBI’s Outreach and Training Programme. Contents Introduction Foreword 2 Major Achievements 2011 4 Services Rolf Apweiler and Ewan Birney: Protein and nucleotide data 10 Guy Cochrane: The European Nucleotide Archive 14 Paul Flicek:
  • BD2K Program Book Cover

    BD2K Program Book Cover

    Table of Contents Agenda Session Descriptions Birds of a Feather Information Birds of a Feather Descriptions Floor Plan of Bethesda North Marriott Hotel & Conference Center Poster/Demo Presentations Information Poster/Demo Presentations Index Poster/Demo Presentations Map Abstract Information Abstract Index Abstracts, in agenda order by the following topics: Research Highlights Data Commons Standards Development Training & Workforce Development BioCADDIE & Resource Indexing Software, Analysis, & Methods Development Collaborative Presentations Sustainability Keynote Speaker Biographies Open Science Prize Information Open Science Prize Fact Sheet Open Science Prize Public Voting Information Open Science Prize Advisors Dining Options Local Restaurants and Hotel Gift Shop Menu Big Data to Knowledge (BD2K) All Hands Meeting and Open Data Science Symposium November 29 - December 1, 2016 Bethesda North Marriott Hotel & Conference Center #BD2KOpenSci | #BD2K_AHM | Info: [email protected] AGENDA Tuesday, November 29, 2016 (Day 1) 7:30 a.m. – 8:30 a.m. Registration/Check-in and Poster Set-up (Registration) 8:30 a.m. – 8:45 a.m. Welcome and Meeting Organization: Jennie Larkin (Salons E-H) 8:45 a.m. – 9:15 a.m. BD2K at NIH – A Vision Through 2020: Philip Bourne NOTES 9:15 a.m. – 10:00 a.m. Keynote Address: Robert Califf, Commissioner, U.S. Food and Drug Administration 10:00 a.m. – 10:30 a.m. Coffee Break & Posters (Salons A-D) 10:30 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. Concurrent Sessions: A. Research Highlights #1 (Session Organizers: Jennie Larkin & Philip Bourne) (Salon E) NOTES B. Data Commons (Session Organizer: Vivien Bonazzi) (Salons F-H) NOTES 12:00 p.m. – 1:00 p.m.
  • Protein Family Expansions and Biological Complexity

    Protein Family Expansions and Biological Complexity

    Protein Family Expansions and Biological Complexity Christine Vogel1,2*, Cyrus Chothia1 1 Medical Research Council Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2 Institute for Cellular and Molecular Biology, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, United States of America During the course of evolution, new proteins are produced very largely as the result of gene duplication, divergence and, in many cases, combination. This means that proteins or protein domains belong to families or, in cases where their relationships can only be recognised on the basis of structure, superfamilies whose members descended from a common ancestor. The size of superfamilies can vary greatly. Also, during the course of evolution organisms of increasing complexity have arisen. In this paper we determine the identity of those superfamilies whose relative sizes in different organisms are highly correlated to the complexity of the organisms. As a measure of the complexity of 38 uni- and multicellular eukaryotes we took the number of different cell types of which they are composed. Of 1,219 superfamilies, there are 194 whose sizes in the 38 organisms are strongly correlated with the number of cell types in the organisms. We give outline descriptions of these superfamilies. Half are involved in extracellular processes or regulation and smaller proportions in other types of activity. Half of all superfamilies have no significant correlation with complexity. We also determined whether the expansions of large superfamilies correlate with each other. We found three large clusters of correlated expansions: one involves expansions in both vertebrates and plants, one just in vertebrates, and one just in plants.
  • Crossm Mbio.Asm.Org

    Crossm Mbio.Asm.Org

    Downloaded from PERSPECTIVE crossm mbio.asm.org Identifying and Overcoming Threats to Reproducibility, on June 11, 2018 - Published by Replicability, Robustness, and Generalizability in Microbiome Research Patrick D. Schlossa aDepartment of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA mbio.asm.org ABSTRACT The “reproducibility crisis” in science affects microbiology as much as any other area of inquiry, and microbiologists have long struggled to make their re- search reproducible. We need to respect that ensuring that our methods and results are sufficiently transparent is difficult. This difficulty is compounded in interdisciplin- ary fields such as microbiome research. There are many reasons why a researcher is unable to reproduce a previous result, and even if a result is reproducible, it may not be correct. Furthermore, failures to reproduce previous results have much to teach us about the scientific process and microbial life itself. This Perspec- tive delineates a framework for identifying and overcoming threats to reproducibil- ity, replicability, robustness, and generalizability of microbiome research. Instead of seeing signs of a crisis in others’ work, we need to appreciate the technical and social difficulties that limit reproducibility in the work of others as well as our own. KEYWORDS American Academy of Microbiology, microbiome, reproducibility, research ethics, scientific method n first blush, one might argue that any scientist should be able to reproduce Oanother scientist’s research with no friction. Yet, two anecdotes suffice to describe why this is not the case. The first goes to the roots of microbiology, when Antonie van Leeuwenhoek submitted a letter to the Royal Society in 1677, “Concerning little animals” (1).
  • Program Schedule

    Program Schedule

    2015 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine Nov 9-12, 2015, Washington D.C. , USA 1 Sponsored by 2 IEEE BIBM 2015 IEEE BIBM 2015 Program Schedule ..................................................................................................................................... 4 Floor Plan ................................................................................................................................................................................ 9 Keynote Lectures .................................................................................................................................................................. 10 Invited Talks ......................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Federal Agencies and Industry Panel .................................................................................................................................... 15 Workshops ............................................................................................................................................................................ 16 Tutorials ................................................................................................................................................................................ 26 Conference Paper Presentations ...........................................................................................................................................
  • Governing Medical Knowledge Commons

    Governing Medical Knowledge Commons

    Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 170.106.202.126, on 02 Oct 2021 at 13:46:24, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/C4CAF56DF197BA93E850E65509EB36E8 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 170.106.202.126, on 02 Oct 2021 at 13:46:24, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/C4CAF56DF197BA93E850E65509EB36E8 governing medical knowledge commons Governing Medical Knowledge Commons makes three claims: first, evidence matters to innovation policymaking; second, evidence shows that self-governing knowledge com- mons support effective innovation without prioritizing traditional intellectual property rights; and third, knowledge commons can succeed in the critical fields of medicine and health. The editors’ knowledge commons framework adapts Elinor Ostrom’s ground- breaking research on natural resource commons to the distinctive attributes of knowl- edge and information, providing a systematic means for accumulating evidence about how knowledge commons succeed. The editors’ previous volume, Governing Knowledge Commons, demonstrated the framework’s power through case studies in a diverse range of areas. Governing Medical Knowledge Commons provides 15 new case studies of knowl- edge commons in which researchers, medical professionals, and patients generate, improve, and share innovations, offering readers a practical introduction to the knowl- edge commons framework and a synthesis of conclusions and lessons. The book is available Open Access at http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/9781316544587. Katherine J. Strandburg is the Alfred B. Engelberg Professor of Law at New York University School of Law, where she specializes in patent law, innovation policy, and information privacy law.
  • Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing 2010

    Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing 2010

    Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing 15:v-viii PACIFIC SYMPOSIUM ON BIOCOMPUTING 2010 This year marks the 15th year of PSB. Started in 1996 by Teri Klein and Larry Hunter, the meeting was a session within the Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences Conference (HICSS) for a couple of years. The interest in biocomputing was great and was threatening to alter the balance of attendees within the HICSS meeting, and so the organizers asked Teri and Larry to find an alternative. Taking advantage of the nice meeting opportunities in Hawaii immediately following New Year’s Day, they created PSB with a simple formula: oral presentation of peer reviewed papers in emerging areas of biocomputing, interactive poster sessions, and lively discussion sessions on these topics. They invited Keith Dunker and Russ Altman to join the team for the second PSB, and we have been working together ever since. In fifteen years, we have had some papers that have made remarkable impact. Using Google Scholar, the top 15 papers, in terms of citations over the last 15 years are listed below (with number of citations listed as of September 2009, followed by the reference). Obviously, there are other great papers, especially ones that have been written in the last few years, that have not yet had time to rise to the top of this list. Nevertheless, the list provides highlights of the last 15 years in biocomputing challenges. (573) REVEAL, A General Reverse Engineering Algorithm for Inference of GeneticNetwork Architectures S. Liang, S. Fuhrman and R. Somogyi; Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing 3:18-29 (1998).
  • Implementing a System to Enable Credit for Data Sharing April 9, 2018

    Implementing a System to Enable Credit for Data Sharing April 9, 2018

    Implementing a System to Enable Credit for Data Sharing April 9, 2018 Association of American Medical Colleges 655 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001 ATTENDEE LIST George Alter Gil Alterovitz Joyce Backus Research Professor Presidential Innovation Fellow Associate Director ICPSR White House Presidential Innovation National Library of Medicine Fellow Program Jacquelyn Bendall Gordon Bernard Barbara Bierer Director, Research Compliance Executive Vice President for Research Faculty Director Council on Governmental Relations Vanderbilt University MRCT Center Richard Bookman Brian Bot Philip Bourne Director and Senior Advisor Principal Scientist Director & Professor University of Miami Sage Bionetworks University of Virginia Timothy Clark Merce Crosas Jacques Demotes-Mainard Associate Professor Chief Data Science and Technology Director General University of Virginia Officer, IQSS ECRIN Harvard University Anurupa Dev Jeffrey Drazen Rebecca English Lead Specialist, Science Policy Editor-in-Chief Program Officer Association of American Medical New England Journal of Medicine National Academies Colleges David Fearon Megan Force Maryrose Franko Sr. Data Management Specialist Editor, Data Citation Index Executive Director Johns Hopkins University Clarivate Analytics Health Research Alliance Jason Gerson Cynthia Grossman Janet Hall Senior Program Officer Director Director, Precision Medicine PCORI FasterCures Platform American Heart Association Robert Hanisch Anna Hatch Denise Hills Director, Office of Data and DORA Community Manager Director,
  • AFP / Biosapiens 2008 SIG Meeting Program Toronto, Canada, July 2008

    AFP / Biosapiens 2008 SIG Meeting Program Toronto, Canada, July 2008

    AFP / Biosapiens 2008 SIG Meeting Program Toronto, Canada, July 2008 Dear AFP / Biosapiens 2008 attendee, Welcome to the joint Automated Function Prediction / Biosapiens meeting in ISMB 2008. This is the second time AFP and Biosapiens are joining forces to bring you an engaging and stimulating program. As usual, we strive to bring you the latest in cutting-edge research in computational gene and protein function prediction and annotation delivered by leading international researchers. This year we are holding a joint session with the 3D SIG on predicting function from protein structure. “Structure to Function” is a problem that is rapidly moving to the forefront of life science due to the increasing number of unannotated structures coming from structural genomics projects. We are also addressing a need voiced by the community to learn more about computational function prediction. Kimmen Sjölander from the University of California Berkeley will conduct a workshop on function prediction using phylogenomics. Yanay Ofran from Bar Ilan University, Israel and Predrag Radivojac from Indiana University will present a variety of components, tools and techniques for computational function prediction. Those tutorials are intended for researchers and students that are entering the field, and for those in the field to gain more knowledge and expertise. This is a rare opportunity to interact informally with leading experts in the field and enhance your own research. We would like to thank the members of the Program Committee for carefully reviewing the abstracts sent to this meeting. Thanks to the International Society for Computational Biology for hosting this meeting at ISMB 2008. A special thanks to Prof.