Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 3,608

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Orchestrating high-throughput genomic analysis with Bioconductor

Open access
Huber, Wolfgang, Carey, Vincent J, Gentleman, Robert, Anders, Simon, Carlson, Marc, Carvalho, Benilton S, Bravo, Hector Corrada, Davis, Sean, Gatto, Laurent, Girke, Thomas, Gottardo, Raphael, Hahne, Florian, Hansen, Kasper D, Irizarry, Rafael A, Lawrence, Michael, Love, Michael I, MacDonald, James, Obenchain, Valerie, Oleś, Andrzej K, Pagès, Hervé, Reyes, Alejandro, Shannon, Paul, Smyth, Gordon K, Tenenbaum, Dan, Waldron, Levi, Morgan, Martin·2015·Nature Methods
DOI 10.1038/nmeth.3252
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Bioconductor is an open-source, open-development software project for the analysis and comprehension of high-throughput data in genomics and molecular biology. The project aims to enable interdisciplinary research, collaboration and rapid development of scientific software. Based on the statistical programming language R, Bioconductor comprises 934 interoperable packages contributed by a large, diverse community of scientists. Packages cover a range of bioinformatic and statistical applications. They undergo formal initial review and continuous automated testing. We present an overview for prospective users and contributors.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nmeth.3252

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 21

  1. Gentleman, R.C. et al. Bioconductor: open software development for computational biology and bioinformatics. Genome Biol. 5, R80 (2004). · DOI · Paper page
  2. Hahne, F., Huber, W., Gentleman, R. & Falcon, S. Bioconductor Case Studies (Springer, 2008). · DOI
  3. Lawrence, M. et al. Software for computing and annotating genomic ranges. PLoS Comput. Biol. 9, e1003118 (2013). · DOI · Paper page
  4. Ohnishi, Y. et al. Cell-to-cell expression variability followed by signal reinforcement progressively segregates early mouse lineages. Nat. Cell Biol. 16, 27–37 (2014). · DOI · Paper page
  5. Finak, G. et al. OpenCyto: an open source infrastructure for scalable, robust, reproducible, and automated, end-to-end flow cytometry data analysis. PLoS Comput. Biol. 10, e1003806 (2014). · DOI · Paper page
  6. Chelaru, F., Smith, L., Goldstein, N. & Corrada Bravo, H. Epiviz: interactive visual analytics for functional genomics data. Nat. Methods 11, 938–940 (2014). · DOI
  7. Gentleman, R. Reproducible research: a bioinformatics case study. Stat. Appl. Genet. Mol. Biol. 4, Article 2 (2005). · DOI
  8. Anders, S. & Huber, W. Differential expression analysis for sequence count data. Genome Biol. 11, R106 (2010). · DOI · Paper page
  9. Laufer, C., Fischer, B., Billmann, M., Huber, W. & Boutros, M. Mapping genetic interactions in human cancer cells with RNAi and multiparametric phenotyping. Nat. Methods 10, 427–431 (2013). · DOI
  10. Waldron, L. et al. Comparative meta-analysis of prognostic gene signatures for late-stage ovarian cancer. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 106, dju049 (2014).
  11. Riester, M. et al. Risk prediction for late-stage ovarian cancer by meta-analysis of 1525 patient samples. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 106, dju048 (2014). · DOI · Paper page
  12. McMurdie, P.J. & Holmes, S. Waste not, want not: why rarefying microbiome data is inadmissible. PLoS Comput. Biol. 10, e1003531 (2014). · DOI · Paper page
  13. Goecks, J., Nekrutenko, A., Taylor, J. & The Galaxy Team. Galaxy: a comprehensive approach for supporting accessible, reproducible, and transparent computational research in the life sciences. Genome Biol. 11, R86 (2010). · DOI · Paper page
  14. Pérez, F. & Granger, B.E. IPython: a system for interactive scientific computing. Comput. Sci. Eng. 9, 21–29 (2007). · DOI · Paper page
  15. Anonymous. Credit for code. Nat. Genet. 46, 1 (2014). · doi:10.1038/ng.2869
  16. Altschul, S. et al. The anatomy of successful computational biology software. Nat. Biotechnol. 31, 894–897 (2013). · DOI
  17. Lawrence, M. & Morgan, M. Scalable genomics with R and Bioconductor. Stat. Sci. 29, 214–226 (2014). · doi:10.1214/14-sts476
  18. Brazma, A. et al. Minimum information about a microarray experiment (MIAME) - toward standards for microarray data. Nat. Genet. 29, 365–371 (2001). · DOI · Paper page
  19. Cabezas-Wallscheid, N. et al. Identification of regulatory networks in HSCs and their immediate progeny via integrated proteome, transcriptome, and DNA methylome analysis. Cell Stem Cell 15, 507–522 (2014). · DOI · Paper page
  20. Anders, S., Reyes, A. & Huber, W. Detecting differential usage of exons from RNA-seq data. Genome Res. 22, 2008–2017 (2012). · DOI · Paper page
  21. Obenchain, V. et al. VariantAnnotation: a Bioconductor package for exploration and annotation of genetic variants. Bioinformatics 30, 2076 (2014). · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Items 101–117 of 117

Metadata

Authors
Huber, W., Carey, V. J., Gentleman, R., Anders, S., Carlson, M., Carvalho, B. S., Bravo, H. C., Davis, S., Gatto, L., Girke, T., Gottardo, R., Hahne, F., Hansen, K. D., Irizarry, R. A., Lawrence, M., Love, M. I., MacDonald, J., Obenchain, V., Oleś, A. K., Pagès, H., Reyes, A., Shannon, P., Smyth, G. K., Tenenbaum, D., Waldron, L., & Morgan, M.
Venue
Nature Methods
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2015-01-29
Volume
12
Issue
2
Pages
115-121
ISSN
  • 1548-7091 (ISSN-L)
  • 1548-7105
DOI
10.1038/nmeth.3252
OpenAlex
W1973094248
Cited by
3,608
References
2
FWCI
108.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green
Licence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.