4.6 Article

Cloud computing for comparative genomics

期刊

BMC BIOINFORMATICS
卷 11, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2105-11-259

关键词

-

资金

  1. Amazon Web Services product development team
  2. National Science Foundation [0543480, 0640809]
  3. National Institutes of Health [LM009261]
  4. Div Of Biological Infrastructure
  5. Direct For Biological Sciences [0640809, 0543480] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Large comparative genomics studies and tools are becoming increasingly more compute-expensive as the number of available genome sequences continues to rise. The capacity and cost of local computing infrastructures are likely to become prohibitive with the increase, especially as the breadth of questions continues to rise. Alternative computing architectures, in particular cloud computing environments, may help alleviate this increasing pressure and enable fast, large-scale, and cost-effective comparative genomics strategies going forward. To test this, we redesigned a typical comparative genomics algorithm, the reciprocal smallest distance algorithm (RSD), to run within Amazon's Elastic Computing Cloud (EC2). We then employed the RSD-cloud for ortholog calculations across a wide selection of fully sequenced genomes. Results: We ran more than 300,000 RSD-cloud processes within the EC2. These jobs were farmed simultaneously to 100 high capacity compute nodes using the Amazon Web Service Elastic Map Reduce and included a wide mix of large and small genomes. The total computation time took just under 70 hours and cost a total of $6,302 USD. Conclusions: The effort to transform existing comparative genomics algorithms from local compute infrastructures is not trivial. However, the speed and flexibility of cloud computing environments provides a substantial boost with manageable cost. The procedure designed to transform the RSD algorithm into a cloud-ready application is readily adaptable to similar comparative genomics problems.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据