GigaScience Press

Chris Hunter

**The Giga-Curation Challenge 2016  
[![Giga-Curation
Challenge](http://gigasciencejournal.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/keepcalmannotate1.jpg){.alignright
.wp-image-1666 .size-full loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="193"
height="275"}](http://gigasciencejournal.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/keepcalmannotate1.jpg)**Annotation
and curation are under appreciated parts of scholarship, because they
allow someone to provide additional insight into a work, and are needed
for efficient and easy re-use. As
[GigaDB](http://gigadb.org/){target="_blank" rel="noopener"} and other
such resources for data dissemination and publication grow in size and
importance we are looking at ways to add value by enabling the efficient
and accurate addition of essential metadata in a sustainable manner.
It's clear that the amount of data being generated worldwide cannot be
curated and annotated by any one individual or small group. So how then
should we make these data discoverable by humans and machines alike? The
answer may lie with you, the community of users that read and digest it.
Following the theme from the recent [community genomes blog
posting](http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/gigablog/2015/12/10/community-genomes-gigatv/)
we are now proud to support two new efforts to empower the common user
(you) to become the extra-ordinary curators that you are most certainly
capable of.

Since the BioCuration2015 meeting in Beijing (see our ["BioCuration
behind the bamboo curtain"
write-up](http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/gigablog/2015/04/28/biocuration-behind-bamboo-curtain/){target="_blank"
rel="noopener"}), we have been working with colleagues at both
[Hypothes.is](http://www.hypothes.is) and
[iCLiKVAL](http://iclikval.riken.jp) to bring the powers of community
annotation to GigaDB. In December last year we posted a [Q&A
blog](http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/gigablog/2015/12/01/importance-annotation-qa-hypothes-director-biosciences-maryann-martone/)
on the importance of annotation, which featured the Hypothes.is Director
of Biosciences, Maryann Martone.

To raise awareness and encourage the uptake of these tools we are
running a curation challenge at this years [BioCuration
event](http://www.isb-sib.ch/events/biocuration2016/) to be held in
Geneva this April 10^th^-14^th^. [Going back to
2012](http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/gigablog/2012/04/03/the-state-of-the-curation-nation/){target="_blank"
rel="noopener"} we've been regular attendees and sponsors of the
meeting, and there is still time to sign up for the early bird
[registration](http://www.isb-sib.ch/events/biocuration2016/registration){target="_blank"
rel="noopener"}. On offer will be the prize of an Apple iPad mini4 for
the top annotator during the conference. Eventually it is hoped that
users will realize the utility of these tools and begin to both
habitually use and add information to these apps making them ever more
useful and potentially become a standard part of the process of carrying
out research. To advertise this challenge we've created a [short
video](https://youtu.be/HQFpQ_KY6ok){target="_blank" rel="noopener"}.

The Giga-Curation Challenge will be monitored by a new tool that we are
developing, called the [Annotometer](http://annotometer.com). The app
will present a dynamic live leaderboard of the number of annotations
being added by registered users, showing the usernames of the top few
annotators in an attempt to appeal to the competitive spirit of people.

Registration will begin shortly, but if you'd like further information
or pre-register your details contact database@gigasciencejournal.com.

*Chris Hunter, PhD. Lead Biocurator, GigaScience.*

[![](http://gigasciencejournal.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Slide11.jpg){.aligncenter
.size-full .wp-image-1667 loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="706"
height="289"
srcset="http://gigasciencejournal.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Slide11.jpg 706w, http://gigasciencejournal.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Slide11-300x123.jpg 300w"
sizes="(max-width: 706px) 100vw, 706px"}](http://gigasciencejournal.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Slide11.jpg)

The post [Encouraging community curation through
competition](http://gigasciencejournal.com/blog/encouraging-community-curation-competition/){rel="nofollow"}
appeared first on
[GigaBlog](http://gigasciencejournal.com/blog){rel="nofollow"}.


The Giga-Curation Challenge 2016

Annotation and curation are under appreciated parts of scholarship, because they allow someone to provide additional insight into a work, and are needed for efficient and easy re-use.

Encouraging community curation through competition

Scott Edmunds

[![](http://gigasciencejournal.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Keith-Bradnam_UC-Davis.jpg){.alignleft
.size-full .wp-image-770 loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="220"
height="220"
srcset="http://gigasciencejournal.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Keith-Bradnam_UC-Davis.jpg 220w, http://gigasciencejournal.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Keith-Bradnam_UC-Davis-150x150.jpg 150w, http://gigasciencejournal.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Keith-Bradnam_UC-Davis-100x100.jpg 100w"
sizes="(max-width: 220px) 100vw, 220px"}](http://gigasciencejournal.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Keith-Bradnam_UC-Davis.jpg)A
*lot* has already been written about last months [Assemblathon2
paper](http://www.gigasciencejournal.com/content/1/1/18 "Assemblathon2 paper"){target="_blank"
rel="noopener"} in *GigaScience* (see the growing list of articles
[here](http://assemblathon.org/post/44431915644/feedback-and-analysis-of-the-assemblathon-2-p "Assemblathon Blog"){target="_blank"
rel="noopener"}), but for the box-set completists interested in
squeezing every last bit of insight into the project and how it was put
together, there was a lot of additional material left over from the
recent [Biome Q&A with Keith
Bradnam](http://www.biomedcentral.com/biome/keith-bradnam-on-assemblathon-2-putting-genome-assembly-tools-to-the-test/ "Biome Bradnam Q&A"){target="_blank"
rel="noopener"} that we thought it could be useful to post in a
(hopefully final) blog posting. Keith is a project scientist in the
[Korf lab](http://korflab.ucdavis.edu/ "Korf lab"){target="_blank"
rel="noopener"} at UC Davis where he has juggled investigating
intronic-based signals in gene expression and running the Assemblathon.
This is the second Q&A we have collected in Gigablog, after Xin Zhou
provided an [behind-the-scenes
overview](http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/gigablog/2013/04/02/qa-with-xin-zhou-author-of-our-insect-squishome-paper/ "Qin Zhou Q&A"){target="_blank"
rel="noopener"} of his insect "squishome" metabarcoding paper, and we
hope to provide more of these in the future that you will be able to
search using the Q&A tag.

**How did the Assemblathon come about?**

The
[Assemblathon](http://assemblathon.org/ "Assemblathon website"){target="_blank"
rel="noopener"} developed as an offshoot of the [Genome 10K
project](https://genome10k.soe.ucsc.edu/ "Genome10K homepage"){target="_blank"
rel="noopener"}, which is aiming to sequence the genomes of 10,000
vertebrates. There is almost no point in attempting to sequence so many
genomes if we are not reasonably sure that we can accurately assemble
those genomes from the initial sequencing read data. As there are so
many different tools out there to perform *de novo* assembly, it seemed
to make sense to try to benchmark some of them.

**Why is it important to assess genome assembly?**

There are many areas of genomics where a researcher can find a plethora
of bioinformatics tools that all try to solve the same problem. However,
different software tools often produce very different answers. Even the
same tool can generate very different answers if you explore all of its
parameters and configuration options. It is not always obvious how the
results from different tools stack up against each other, and it is not
always obvious as to which tools we should trust the most (if any).

If you wanted to know who made the best chili in your local area, then
you could organize a 'chili cook off'. As well as deciding an overall
winner, you could also award prizes for specific categories of chili
(best vegetarian chili, best low-fat recipe etc.). What we can do for
chili we can also do for genome assemblers.

Contests like the Assemblathon can help reveal the differences in how
different genome assemblers perform, and can also pinpoint the specific
areas where one program might outperform another. However, just as
tasting chili can be a very subjective experience, there can be similar
issues when evaluating genome assemblers. One of the objectives for the
Assemblathon was to try to get a handle on what 'best' means in the
context of genome assembly.

**As the majority of genomes are currently sequenced using the same
Illumina technology, are things pretty standardized?**

The landscape of sequencing technology is constantly shifting. Illumina
has a strong grip on the sequencing market at the moment; however, there
are many other players out there (Ion Torrent, Roche 454, Pacific
BioSciences, ABI SOLiD), not to mention others who may or may not shake
up the industry in the near future (e.g. Oxford Nanopore, Nabsys).

There can also be a lot of diversity \*within\* a single platform. The
first Illumina (then Solexa) sequencing reads were only 25 bp long; the
latest Illumina technology is promising maybe a 10-fold increase in
length. Writing software to optimize the assembly of 25 bp reads is a
different problem than optimizing the assembly of 250 bp reads. So even
if we only had a single platform, there would still be a need to
evaluate and reevaluate assembly software.

**What was the rationale for using a different approach to Assemblathon
1, where you used synthetic data?**

It helps to put a jigsaw together when you have the picture on the box
to help you! Most of the time that people perform genome assembly, they
don't have that picture. So it can be hard to know whether you even have
all of the genome present (let alone whether it is accurately put
together). In Assemblathon 1, we wanted to know what the answer was
going to be \*before\* people started assembling data, so we used an
artificial genome that was created in a way that tried to preserve some
properties of a real genome.

However, for Assemblathon 2 there was a lot of interest in working with
real world data. The genome assembly community wants to be solving
problems that can actually help others with their research.

**Why did you pick the three species that you did (budgie, boa
constrictor and cichlid fish)?**

A major factor was simply the availability of suitable sequencing data.
But it also seemed a good idea to use some fairly diverse species, the
genomes of which might pose different types of challenge for genome
assemblers (different repeat content, heterozygosity etc.).

**What were the main findings of Assemblathon2?**

To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln: you can get an assembler to perform well
across all metrics in some species, across some metrics in all species,
but you can't get an assembler to perform well across all metrics in all
species.

**Were you surprised by the huge variations in the results?**

Yes and no. Personally speaking, I was expecting to see variation in
performance between assemblers but I thought that some of the bigger
'brand name' assemblers might have shown more consistency when assessed
across species.

**What were the challenges of coordinating such a large project?**

Coordinating 91 co-authors on \*any\* project is tough, but in the case
of Assemblathon 2 most of those co-authors were from competing teams.
Therefore you have to be careful to ensure that suggestions to change
any detail of the project/paper are all in the best scientific interests
of everyone concerned. Data distribution of the raw input data was also
a challenge and was helped greatly by the Pittsburgh Supercomputing
Center that helped make the data available for downloading. In many
cases, it was easier for collaborators to use the 'sneakernet' approach
and just send us hard drives in the post.

**The way you have embraced pre-prints and blogging, and the way the
more interactive peer-review came about is still quite unusual for
biology. What is the appeal of making your work available in arXiv, and
the open peer-review that *GigaScience* carries out?**

Personally, I am a strong advocate that results from tax-payer funded
research should become publicly available a.s.a.p. I think we can
demonstrably show --- by the volume of blog posts that have now
discussed the Assemblathon 2 project --- that the resulting conversation
about genome assembly has been a useful one. I really hope that more
journals adopt open peer-review and encourage the use of pre-print
servers.

**Has the experience changed the way you plan to publish your own work
in the future, or review others work?**

I think it has made me even more committed to support open access
publishing and open peer-review (I made the decision about a year ago to
start signing my reviews, even when not required). It has also made me
more determined to write more on my [personal
blog](http://keithbradnam.com/ "Keith Bradnam blog"){target="_blank"
rel="noopener"} about bioinformatics and genomics. Blogging and tweeting
about your work can raise your visibility within your field, can help
hone your writing skills, and may even help you compete with others when
applying for jobs.

**Titus Brown, who [openly
blogged](http://ivory.idyll.org/blog/thoughts-on-assemblathon-2.html "Titus Assemblathon blog posting"){target="_blank"
rel="noopener"} about the paper whilst in peer review, suggests that
scientists do a very poor job of communicating the uncertainty in genome
assemblies 'an indictment of much of computational biology'. Do you have
such a bleak view? What do we need to do to improve this?**

To a large degree, I agree with Titus. The genomics community often
talks about 'drowning in data', but we are also 'drowning in tools to
analyze that data'. This is especially so in certain areas, e.g. the
number of programs available that map short-reads back to genomes is
overwhelming. Sometimes it seems that we are in an endless race to keep
on publishing new tools without pausing to really check how well the
existing tools work (or whether they work at all). Maybe we need a
dedicated journal, or online resource, that does nothing other than
assess the comparative performance of bioinformatics tools. We should
also be encouraging students --- i.e. the next generation of
bioinformaticians --- to perhaps be more distrustful of these tools.
Just because a particular piece of software gives you an answer, doesn't
make it the right answer (or the only answer).

**On top of what we are doing wrong with genome assembly, what are we
doing right? Are there any positives you have found from the project?**

One of the issues that has partly limited the field of genome assembly
is that we have mostly stuck with the same sequence file formats (FASTA
and FASTQ). These formats limit us to only displaying \*one\* version of
a genome sequence, even when we know about variants that might be
present. This is a bit like having to tick a single box on
questionnaires that ask you about your ethnicity. If you are half
Japanese and half Swedish, which box do you tick? Choosing one option
means you lose a whole lot of information. Currently, a genome assembly
in FASTA format is an assembly that has to tick that one box over and
over again.

Fortunately, an initiative led by the Broad Institute has led to the
development of a new 'FASTG' sequence format. This format allows a
genome assembly sequence to describe haplotype and other variation. For
example, a contig might contain a region that consists of ACGT followed
by 2 or 3 Cs, optionally followed by a G. The FASTG format allows you to
capture this variation and this will allow for a much better
representation of genome assemblies. A true genome sequence is usually a
mix of two parental genomes, and we should be representing this.

**The results from each of the teams on each of the genomes was very
mixed, but would you say there were some entries that were better
overall? One criticism of Assemblathon is that to get so many groups to
continue to take part, you've been reluctant to promote winners and
losers. How do you respond to this, and can you tell us who the real
winner was?**

We were very diplomatic with how we described the outcome of
[Assemblathon
1](http://genome.cshlp.org/content/21/12/2224.full "Assemblathon1 paper"){target="_blank"
rel="noopener"}, where some assemblers performed consistently better
than others. But in Assemblathon 2, there was so much variation it
seemed hard to say that any single team should be declared a winner. At
best we can say that in a given species, and when considering a specific
genome assembly metric, that there were winners i.e. some assemblers
will give you longer contigs for the fish genome, some others might
capture more of the genes in the snake genome, and others will give
better coverage of the bird genome. These may all be different
assemblers. This is not necessarily what people were hoping to hear, but
that's what happened. Hopefully, this information will still be valuable
to people though.

**There has been a lot of criticism lately of large consortia driven
projects such as
[ENCODE](http://encodeproject.org/ENCODE/ "ENCODE project"){target="_blank"
rel="noopener"}. Having had to coordinate over 20 groups, and 90 authors
on this paper, has this changed your perspective on this? What have you
learned from the whole experience, and do you think you will tackle
anything on this scale again?**

Assemblathon 2 is a bit different to projects like ENCODE in that it was
a contest that was predominantly organized by a fairly small group
(three of us at the UC Davis Genome Center). The large number of
co-authors primarily reflect the composition of the 21 competing teams
that took part. I have learned a lot from the experience, especially not
to underestimate the challenges involved when coordinating so many
people! A quick tip to anyone else in a similar position: using Google
Docs to coordinate feedback on a draft manuscript is a viable --- i.e.
sanity-restoring --- alternative to instead emailing many PDFs or Word
Docs back and forth and having to somehow assimilate the resulting melee
of comments.

It's hard to imagine doing something like this again, but who knows.

**Do you think there will be an Assemblathon3? If so, what do you think
you would do differently next time?**

I'm in the process of writing a blog post on this very topic (to be
posted at
[http://assemblathon.org](http://assemblathon.org/ "Assemblathon website"){target="_blank"
rel="noopener"}). There are many things that could, and perhaps should,
be done differently. For starters, if the community embraces the FASTG
format that I mentioned earlier, it would make sense to use this as the
format of choice for Assemblathon 3. Perhaps more importantly, we should
find a different lead author!

**Further reading:**  
[1.](http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2047-217X-2-10 "Assemblathon paper"){target="_blank"
rel="noopener"} Keith R Bradnam *et al.*, Assemblathon 2: evaluating de
novo methods of genome assembly in three vertebrate species
*GigaScience* 2013 **2**:10
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2047-217X-2-10](http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2047-217X-2-10 "Assemblathon paper"){target="_blank"
rel="noopener"}

UPDATE 22/8/13 Keith has now posted his "Is there going to be an
Assemblathon 3?" blog posting
[here](http://assemblathon.org/post/58945403634/thoughts-on-assemblathon-3 "Assemblathon3 blog").

The post [Extended Q&A with Assemblathon2 Author Keith
Bradnam](http://gigasciencejournal.com/blog/extended-qa-with-assemblathon2-author-keith-bradnam/){rel="nofollow"}
appeared first on
[GigaBlog](http://gigasciencejournal.com/blog){rel="nofollow"}.


A

 lot

has already been written about last months Assemblathon2 paper in

 GigaScience

(see the growing list of articles here), but for the box-set completists interested in squeezing every last bit of insight into the project and how it was put together, there was a lot of additional material left over from the recent Biome Q&amp;A with Keith Bradnam that we thought it could be useful to post in a (hopefully final) blog posting.

Rogue Scholar Posts

Encouraging community curation through competition

Extended Q&A with Assemblathon2 Author Keith Bradnam