1/4 Very happy to see our preprint on benchmarking of computational error-correction methods for next-generation sequencing via unique molecular identifiers online. Work lead by @keith__mitchell and @imandric1 biorxiv.org/content/10.110… 2/4 We evaluate the ability of error-correction algorithms to fix errors across different types of datasets (WGS, Rep-Seq, and Viral-Seq) corresponding to various level of heterogeneity.

1/4 Very happy to see our review on systematic benchmarking of omics computational tools is now published in @NatureComms. Our review summarizes benchmarking practices from 25 recent studies and discusses the challenges, and limitations of benchmarking in computational biology 2/4 In order to begin identifying and understanding trends in benchmarking we surveyed 25 benchmarking studies( 2011 - 2017). The vast majority (72%) of existing benchmarking studies failed to report computational resources and time required to run the evaluated tools.

1/5 Our preprint about software crisis in computational biology is live! We have performed a review of usability and archival stability of published omics tools and resources. We have found that 28% of the tools are impossible to install. bit.ly/2yAphZX @thmosqueiro just suggested that usually people post threads replying their own tweets, so that twitter group them together :)

I am new to twitter so i just made 5 separate tweets. Let me get them together here.