Open, collaborative research is a powerful paradigm that can immensely strengthen the scientific process by integrating broad and diverse expertise. However, traditional research and multi-author writing processes break down at scale. We present new software named Manubot, available at https://manubot.org , to address the challenges of open scholarly writing. Manubot adopts the contribution workflow used by many large-scale open source software projects to enable collaborative authoring of scholarly manuscripts. With Manubot, manuscripts are written in Markdown and stored in a Git repository to precisely track changes over time. By hosting manuscript repositories publicly, such as on GitHub, multiple authors can simultaneously propose and review changes. A cloud service automatically evaluates proposed changes to catch errors. Publication with Manubot is continuous: When a manuscript’s source changes, the rendered outputs are rebuilt and republished to a web page. Manubot automates bibliographic tasks by implementing citation by identifier, where users cite persistent identifiers (e.g. DOIs, PubMed IDs, ISBNs, URLs), whose metadata is then retrieved and converted to a user-specified style. Manubot modernizes publishing to align with the ideals of open science by making it transparent, reproducible, immediate, versioned, collaborative, and free of charge.

BackgroundGene set enrichment analysis and overrepresentation analyses are commonly used methods to determine the biological processes affected by a differential expression experiment. This approach requires biologically relevant gene sets, which are currently curated manually, limiting their availability and accuracy in many organisms without extensively curated resources. New feature learning approaches can now be paired with existing data collections to directly extract functional gene sets from big data.ResultsHere we introduce a method to identify perturbed processes. In contrast with methods that use curated gene sets, this approach uses signatures extracted from public expression data. We first extract expression signatures from public data using ADAGE, a neural network-based feature extraction approach. We next identify signatures that are differentially active under a given treatment. Our results demonstrate that these signatures represent biological processes that are perturbed by the experiment. Because these signatures are directly learned from data without supervision, they can identify uncurated or novel biological processes. We implemented ADAGE signature analysis for the bacterial pathogen Pseudomonas aeruginosa. For the convenience of different user groups, we implemented both an R package (ADAGEpath) and a web server (http://adage.greenelab.com) to run these analyses. Both are open-source to allow easy expansion to other organisms or signature generation methods. We applied ADAGE signature analysis to an example dataset in which wild-type and ∆anr mutant cells were grown as biofilms on the Cystic Fibrosis genotype bronchial epithelial cells. We mapped active signatures in the dataset to KEGG pathways and compared with pathways identified using GSEA. The two approaches generally return consistent results; however, ADAGE signature analysis also identified a signature that revealed the molecularly supported link between the MexT regulon and Anr.ConclusionsWe designed ADAGE signature analysis to perform gene set analysis using data-defined functional gene signatures. This approach addresses an important gap for biologists studying non-traditional model organisms and those without extensive curated resources available. We built both an R package and web server to provide ADAGE signature analysis to the community.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12859-017-1905-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Preprints allow researchers to make their findings available to the scientific community before they have undergone peer review. Studies on preprints within bioRxiv have been largely focused on article metadata and how often these preprints are downloaded, cited, published, and discussed online. A missing element that has yet to be examined is the language contained within the bioRxiv preprint repository. We sought to compare and contrast linguistic features within bioRxiv preprints to published biomedical text as a whole as this is an excellent opportunity to examine how peer review changes these documents. The most prevalent features that changed appear to be associated with typesetting and mentions of supplementary sections or additional files. In addition to text comparison, we created document embeddings derived from a preprint-trained word2vec model. We found that these embeddings are able to parse out different scientific approaches and concepts, link unannotated preprint-peer reviewed article pairs, and identify journals that publish linguistically similar papers to a given preprint. We also used these embeddings to examine factors associated with the time elapsed between the posting of a first preprint and the appearance of a peer reviewed publication. We found that preprints with more versions posted and more textual changes took longer to publish. Lastly, we constructed a web application (https://greenelab.github.io/preprint-similarity-search/) that allows users to identify which journals and articles that are most linguistically similar to a bioRxiv or medRxiv preprint as well as observe where the preprint would be positioned within a published article landscape.