Ten simple rules for organizing a bioinformatics training course in low- And middle-income countries

© 2021 Moore et al.Bioinformatics training is required at every stage of a scientist’s research career. Continual bioinformatics training allows exposure to an ever-changing and growing repertoire of techniques and databases, and so biologists, computational scientists, and healthcare practitioners are all seeking learning opportunities in the use of computational resources and tools designed for data storage, retrieval, and analysis. There are abundant opportunities for accessing bioinformatics training for scientists in high-income countries (HICs), with well-equipped facilities and participants and trainers requiring minimal travel and financial costs alongside a range of general advice for developing short bioinformatics training courses [1–3]. However, regionally targeted bioinformatics training in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) often requires more extensive local and external support, organization, and travel. Due to the limited expertise in bioinformatics in LMICs in general, most bioinformatics training requires a fair amount of collaboration with experts beyond the local community, country, or region. A common model of training, used as the basis of this article, includes a local host collaborating with local, regional, and international experts gathering to train local or regional participants. Recently, there has been a growth of capacity strengthening initiatives in LMICs, such as the Pan African Bioinformatics Network for Human Heredity and Health in Africa (H3ABioNet) Initiative [4–6], the Capacity Building for Bioinformatics in Latin America (CABANA) Project [7], the Asia Pacific BioInformatics Network (APBioNet) [8], and the Wellcome Connecting Science Courses and Conferences program [9]. One of the important strands of these initiatives is a drive to organize and deliver valuable bioinformatics training, but organizing and delivering short bioinformatics training workshops in an LMIC present a unique set of challenges. This paper attempts to build upon the sage advice for organizing bioinformatics workshops with specific guidance for organizing and delivering them in LMICs. It describes the processes to follow in organizing courses taking into consideration the low-resource setting. We should also note that LMICs are not a monolithic group and that setting, context, temporality, and specific location matters. LMICs are a complex regional grouping [10] and should be treated as such; however, we will present some common lessons that we hope will help organizers and trainers of bioinformatics training events in LMICs to navigate the often different, challenging, and rewarding experience.The authors who contributed to this manuscript are funded as follows: BM receives salary support from Wellcome Trust grants [WT108749/Z/15/Z, WT108749/Z/15/A], PC, VR, NM, AG’s salaries are funded in whole, or in part, by the NIH Common Fund H3ABioNet grant [U24HG006941], MC, SLFV, AR, PG, PCL’s salaries were partly funded by the UKRI-BBSRC ‘Capacity building for bioinformatics in Latin America’ (CABANA) grant, on behalf of the Global Challenges Research Fund [BB/P027849/1], JDLR is funded by ISCiii AES [ref. PI18/00591] at the CSIC/USAL (Spain) and by CYTED, RIABIO (Red Iberoamericana 521RT0118), AM’s salary is funded by [WT206194/Z/17/Z], GO is funded by the CABANA grant and SM is funded by the EMBL-EBI

Towards FAIR principles for research software

The FAIR Guiding Principles, published in 2016, aim to improve the findability, accessibility, interoperability and reusability of digital research objects for both humans and machines. Until now the FAIR principles have been mostly applied to research data. The ideas behind these principles are, however, also directly relevant to research software. Hence there is a distinct need to explore how the FAIR principles can be applied to software. In this work, we aim to summarize the current status of the debate around FAIR and software, as basis for the development of community-agreed principles for FAIR research software in the future. We discuss what makes software different from data with regard to the application of the FAIR principles, and which desired characteristics of research software go beyond FAIR. Then we present an analysis of where the existing principles can directly be applied to software, where they need to be adapted or reinterpreted, and where the definition of additional principles is required. Here interoperability has proven to be the most challenging principle, calling for particular attention in future discussions. Finally, we outline next steps on the way towards definite FAIR principles for research software

Ten simple rules for making training materials FAIR

Author summary: Everything we do today is becoming more and more reliant on the use of computers. The field of biology is no exception; but most biologists receive little or no formal preparation for the increasingly computational aspects of their discipline. In consequence, informal training courses are often needed to plug the gaps; and the demand for such training is growing worldwide. To meet this demand, some training programs are being expanded, and new ones are being developed. Key to both scenarios is the creation of new course materials. Rather than starting from scratch, however, it’s sometimes possible to repurpose materials that already exist. Yet finding suitable materials online can be difficult: They’re often widely scattered across the internet or hidden in their home institutions, with no systematic way to find them. This is a common problem for all digital objects. The scientific community has attempted to address this issue by developing a set of rules (which have been called the Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable [FAIR] principles) to make such objects more findable and reusable. Here, we show how to apply these rules to help make training materials easier to find, (re)use, and adapt, for the benefit of all

A framework to assess the quality and impact of bioinformatics training across ELIXIR.

ELIXIR is a pan-European intergovernmental organisation for life science that aims to coordinate bioinformatics resources in a single infrastructure across Europe; bioinformatics training is central to its strategy, which aims to develop a training community that spans all ELIXIR member states. In an evidence-based approach for strengthening bioinformatics training programmes across Europe, the ELIXIR Training Platform, led by the ELIXIR EXCELERATE Quality and Impact Assessment Subtask in collaboration with the ELIXIR Training Coordinators Group, has implemented an assessment strategy to measure quality and impact of its entire training portfolio. Here, we present ELIXIR's framework for assessing training quality and impact, which includes the following: specifying assessment aims, determining what data to collect in order to address these aims, and our strategy for centralised data collection to allow for ELIXIR-wide analyses. In addition, we present an overview of the ELIXIR training data collected over the past 4 years. We highlight the importance of a coordinated and consistent data collection approach and the relevance of defining specific metrics and answer scales for consortium-wide analyses as well as for comparison of data across iterations of the same course

MetaBase--the wiki-database of biological databases.

Biology is generating more data than ever. As a result, there is an ever increasing number of publicly available databases that analyse, integrate and summarize the available data, providing an invaluable resource for the biological community. As this trend continues, there is a pressing need to organize, catalogue and rate these resources, so that the information they contain can be most effectively exploited. MetaBase (MB) (http://MetaDatabase.Org) is a community-curated database containing more than 2000 commonly used biological databases. Each entry is structured using templates and can carry various user comments and annotations. Entries can be searched, listed, browsed or queried. The database was created using the same MediaWiki technology that powers Wikipedia, allowing users to contribute on many different levels. The initial release of MB was derived from the content of the 2007 Nucleic Acids Research (NAR) Database Issue. Since then, approximately 100 databases have been manually collected from the literature, and users have added information for over 240 databases. MB is synchronized annually with the static Molecular Biology Database Collection provided by NAR. To date, there have been 19 significant contributors to the project; each one is listed as an author here to highlight the community aspect of the project

Systems Biology in ELIXIR: modelling in the spotlight

In this white paper, we describe the founding of a new ELIXIR Community - the Systems Biology Community - and its proposed future contributions to both ELIXIR and the broader community of systems biologists in Europe and worldwide. The Community believes that the infrastructure aspects of systems biology - databases, (modelling) tools and standards development, as well as training and access to cloud infrastructure - are not only appropriate components of the ELIXIR infrastructure, but will prove key components of ELIXIR\u27s future support of advanced biological applications and personalised medicine. By way of a series of meetings, the Community identified seven key areas for its future activities, reflecting both future needs and previous and current activities within ELIXIR Platforms and Communities. These are: overcoming barriers to the wider uptake of systems biology; linking new and existing data to systems biology models; interoperability of systems biology resources; further development and embedding of systems medicine; provisioning of modelling as a service; building and coordinating capacity building and training resources; and supporting industrial embedding of systems biology. A set of objectives for the Community has been identified under four main headline areas: Standardisation and Interoperability, Technology, Capacity Building and Training, and Industrial Embedding. These are grouped into short-term (3-year), mid-term (6-year) and long-term (10-year) objectives

The ELIXIR Human Copy Number Variations Community:building bioinformatics infrastructure for research

Copy number variations (CNVs) are major causative contributors both in the genesis of genetic diseases and human neoplasias. While 'High-Throughput' sequencing technologies are increasingly becoming the primary choice for genomic screening analysis, their ability to efficiently detect CNVs is still heterogeneous and remains to be developed. The aim of this white paper is to provide a guiding framework for the future contributions of ELIXIR's recently established h uman CNV Community, with implications beyond human disease diagnostics and population genomics. This white paper is the direct result of a strategy meeting that took place in September 2018 in Hinxton (UK) and involved representatives of 11 ELIXIR Nodes. The meeting led to the definition of priority objectives and tasks, to address a wide range of CNV-related challenges ranging from detection and interpretation to sharing and training. Here, we provide suggestions on how to align these tasks within the ELIXIR Platforms strategy, and on how to frame the activities of this new ELIXIR Community in the international context

Ten simple rules for making training materials FAIR.

Everything we do today is becoming more and more reliant on the use of computers. The field of biology is no exception; but most biologists receive little or no formal preparation for the increasingly computational aspects of their discipline. In consequence, informal training courses are often needed to plug the gaps; and the demand for such training is growing worldwide. To meet this demand, some training programs are being expanded, and new ones are being developed. Key to both scenarios is the creation of new course materials. Rather than starting from scratch, however, it's sometimes possible to repurpose materials that already exist. Yet finding suitable materials online can be difficult: They're often widely scattered across the internet or hidden in their home institutions, with no systematic way to find them. This is a common problem for all digital objects. The scientific community has attempted to address this issue by developing a set of rules (which have been called the Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable [FAIR] principles) to make such objects more findable and reusable. Here, we show how to apply these rules to help make training materials easier to find, (re)use, and adapt, for the benefit of all

Albiglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease (Harmony Outcomes): a double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial

Background: Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists differ in chemical structure, duration of action, and in their effects on clinical outcomes. The cardiovascular effects of once-weekly albiglutide in type 2 diabetes are unknown. We aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of albiglutide in preventing cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Methods: We did a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial in 610 sites across 28 countries. We randomly assigned patients aged 40 years and older with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease (at a 1:1 ratio) to groups that either received a subcutaneous injection of albiglutide (30–50 mg, based on glycaemic response and tolerability) or of a matched volume of placebo once a week, in addition to their standard care. Investigators used an interactive voice or web response system to obtain treatment assignment, and patients and all study investigators were masked to their treatment allocation. We hypothesised that albiglutide would be non-inferior to placebo for the primary outcome of the first occurrence of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, which was assessed in the intention-to-treat population. If non-inferiority was confirmed by an upper limit of the 95% CI for a hazard ratio of less than 1·30, closed testing for superiority was prespecified. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02465515. Findings: Patients were screened between July 1, 2015, and Nov 24, 2016. 10 793 patients were screened and 9463 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to groups: 4731 patients were assigned to receive albiglutide and 4732 patients to receive placebo. On Nov 8, 2017, it was determined that 611 primary endpoints and a median follow-up of at least 1·5 years had accrued, and participants returned for a final visit and discontinuation from study treatment; the last patient visit was on March 12, 2018. These 9463 patients, the intention-to-treat population, were evaluated for a median duration of 1·6 years and were assessed for the primary outcome. The primary composite outcome occurred in 338 (7%) of 4731 patients at an incidence rate of 4·6 events per 100 person-years in the albiglutide group and in 428 (9%) of 4732 patients at an incidence rate of 5·9 events per 100 person-years in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·78, 95% CI 0·68–0·90), which indicated that albiglutide was superior to placebo (p<0·0001 for non-inferiority; p=0·0006 for superiority). The incidence of acute pancreatitis (ten patients in the albiglutide group and seven patients in the placebo group), pancreatic cancer (six patients in the albiglutide group and five patients in the placebo group), medullary thyroid carcinoma (zero patients in both groups), and other serious adverse events did not differ between the two groups. There were three (<1%) deaths in the placebo group that were assessed by investigators, who were masked to study drug assignment, to be treatment-related and two (<1%) deaths in the albiglutide group. Interpretation: In patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, albiglutide was superior to placebo with respect to major adverse cardiovascular events. Evidence-based glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists should therefore be considered as part of a comprehensive strategy to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes. Funding: GlaxoSmithKline