Show me the data!
Header

With a first commit to github not so long ago (2015-04-13), getpapers is one of the newest tools in the ContentMine toolchain.

It’s also the most readily accessible and perhaps most immediately exciting – it does exactly what it says on the tin: it gets papers for you en masse without having to click around all those different publisher websites. A superb time-saver.

It kinda reminds me of mps-youtube: a handy CLI application for watching/listening to youtube.

Installation is super simple and usage is well documented at the source code repository on github, and of course it’s available under an OSI-approved open source MIT license.

An example usage querying Europe PubMedCentral

Currently you can search 3 different aggregators of academic papers: Europe PubMedCentral, arXiv, and IEEE. Copyright restrictions unfortunately mean that full text article download with getpapers is restricted to only freely accessible or open access papers. The development team plans to add more sources that provide API access in future, although it should be noted that many research aggregators simply don’t appear to have an API at the moment e.g. bioRxiv.

The speed of the overall process is very impressive. I ran the below search & download command and it executed it all in 32 seconds, including the download of 50 full text PDFs of the search-relevant articles!

You can choose to download different file formats of the search results: PDF, XML or even the supplementary data. Furthermore, getpapers integrates extremely well with the rest of the ContentMine toolchain, so it’s an ideal starting point for content mining.

getpapers is one of many tools in the ContentMine toolchain that I’ll be demonstrating to early career biologists at a FREE registration, one-day workshop at the University of Bath, Tuesday 28th July. If you’re interested in learning more about fully utilizing the research literature in scalable, reproducible ways, come along! We still have some places left. See the flyer below for more details or follow this link to the official workshop registration page: bit.ly/MiningWrkshp

mining-flyer

To prove my point about the way that supplementary data files bury useful data, making it utterly indiscoverable to most, I decided to do a little experiment (in relation to text mining for museum specimen identifiers, but also perhaps with some relevance to the NHM Conservation Hackathon):

I collected the links for all Biology Letters supplementary data files. I then filtered out the non-textual media such as audio, video and image files, then downloaded the remaining content.

A breakdown of file extensions encountered in this downloaded subset:

763 .doc files
543 .pdf files
109 .docx files
75 .xls files
53 .xlsx files
25 .csv files
19 .txt files
14 .zip files
2 .rtf files
2 .nex files
1 .xml file
1 “.xltx” file

I then converted some of these unfriendly formats into simpler, more easily searchable plain text formats:

 

Now everything is properly searchable and indexable!

In a matter of seconds I can find NHM specimen identifiers that might not otherwise be mentioned in the full text of the paper, without actually wasting any time manually reading any papers. Note, not all the ‘hits’ are true positives but most are, and those that aren’t e.g. “NHMQEVLEGYKKKYE” are easy to distinguish as NOT valid NHM specimen identifiers:

 

Perhaps this approach might be useful to the PREDICTS / LPI teams, looking for species occurrence data sets?

I don’t know why figshare doesn’t do deep indexing by default – it’d be really useful to search the morass of published supplementary data that out there!

Progress on specimen mining

June 14th, 2015 | Posted by rmounce in Content Mining - (0 Comments)

I’ve been on holiday to Japan recently, so work came to a halt on this for a while but I think I’ve largely ‘done’ PLOS ONE full text now (excluding supplementary materials).

My results are on github: https://github.com/rossmounce/NHM-specimens/tree/master/results – one prettier file without the exact provenance or in-sentence context of each putative specimen entity, and one more extensive file with provenance & context included which unfortunately github can’t render/preview.

 

Some summary stats:

I found 427 unique BMNH/NHMUK specimen mentions from a total of just 69 unique PLOS ONE papers. The latter strongly suggests to me that there are a lot of ‘hidden’ specimen identifiers hiding out in difficult-to-search supplementary materials files.

I found 497 specimen mentions if you include instances where the same BMNH/NHMUK specimen is mentioned in different PLOS ONE papers.

Finding putative specimen entities in PLOS ONE full text is relatively automatic and easy. The time-consuming manual part is accurately matching them up with official NHM collection specimens data.

I could only confidently link-up 314 of the 497 detected mentions, to their corresponding unique IDs / URLs in the NHM Open Data Portal Collection Specimens dataset. Approximately one third can’t be confidently be matched-up to a unique specimen in the online specimen collection dataset — I suspect this is mainly down to absence/incompleteness in the online collections data, although a small few are likely typo’s in PLOS ONE papers.

In my last post I was confident that the BM Archaeopteryx specimen would be the most frequently mentioned specimen but with more extensive data collection and analysis that appears now not to be true! NHMUK R3592 (a specimen of Erythrosuchus africanus) is mentioned in 5 different PLOS ONE papers. Pleasingly, Google Scholar also finds only five PLOS ONE papers mentioning this specimen – independent confirmation of my methodology.

One of the BM specimens of Erythrosuchus is more referred to in PLOS ONE than the BM Archaeopterx specimen

Now I have these two ‘atomic’ identifiers linked-up (NHM specimen collections occurrence ID + the Digital Object Identifier of the research article in which it appears), I can if desired, find out a whole wealth of information about these specimens and the papers they are mentioned in.

My next steps will be to extend this search to all of the PubMedCentral OA subset, not just PLOS ONE.

 

In this post I’ll go through an illustrated example of what I plan to do with my text mining project: linking-up biological specimens from the Natural History Museum, London (sometimes known as BMNH or NHMUK) to the published research literature with persistent identifiers.

I’ve run some simple grep searches of the PMC open access subset already, and PLOS ONE make up a significant portion of the ‘hits’, unsurprisingly.

Below is a visual representation of the BMNH specimen ‘hits’ I found in the full text of one PLOS ONE paper:

Grohé C, Morlo M, Chaimanee Y, Blondel C, Coster P, et al. (2012) New Apterodontinae (Hyaenodontida) from the Eocene Locality of Dur At-Talah (Libya): Systematic, Paleoecological and Phylogenetical Implications. PLoS ONE 7(11): e49054. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0049054

onepaper

I used the open source software Gephi, and the Yifan Hu layout to create the above graphical representation. The node marked in blue is the paper. Nodes marked in red are catalogue numbers I couldn’t find in the NHM Open Data Portal specimen collections dataset: 10 out of 34 not found.

Source data table below showing how uninformative the NHM persistent IDs are. I would have plotted them on the graph instead of the catalogue strings as that would be technically more correct (they are the unique IDs), but it would look horrible.

 

I’ve been failing to find a lot of well known entities in the online specimen collections dataset which makes me rather concerned about its completeness. High profile specimens such as Lesothosaurus “BMNH RUB 17″ (as mentioned in this PLOS ONE paper, Table 1) can’t be found online via the portal under that catalogue number. I can however find RUB 16, RUB 52 and RUB 54 but these are probably different specimens. RUB 17 is mentioned in a great many papers by many different authors so it seems unlikely that they have all independently given the specimen an incorrect catalogue number – the problem is more likely to be in the completeness of the online dataset.

Another ‘missing’ example is “BMNH R4947″ a specimen of Euoplocephalus tutus as referred to in Table 4 of this PLOS ONE paper by Arbour and Currie. There are two other records for that taxon, but not under R4947.

To end on a happier note, I can definitely answer one question conclusively:
What is the most ‘popular’ NHM specimen in PLOS ONE full text?

…it’s “BMNH 37001″, Archaeopteryx lithographica which is referred to in full text by four different papers (see below for details).

I have feeling many more NHM specimens are hiding out in separate supplementary materials files. Mining these will be hard unless figshare gets their act together and creates a full-text API for searching their collection – I believe it’s a metadata only API at the moment.

37001 in PLOS ONE papers

 

I’ve purposefully made very simple graphs so far. Once I get more data, I can start linking it up to create beautiful and complex graphs like the one below (of the taxa shared between 3000 microbial phylogenetic studies in IJSEM, unpublished), which I’m still trying to get my head around. The linked open data work continues…

Bacteria subutilis commonly used

 

Now I’m at the Natural History Museum, London I’ve started a new and ambitious text-mining project: to find, extract, publish, and link-up all mentions of NHM, London specimens published in the recent research literature (born digital, published post-2000).

Rod Page is already blazing a trail in this area with older BHL literature. See: Linking specimen codes to GBIF & Design Notes on Modelling Links for recent, relevant posts. But there’s still lots to be done I think, so here’s my modest effort.

 

Why?

It’s important to demonstrate the value of biological specimen collections. A lot of money is spent cataloguing, curating and keeping safe these specimens. It would be extremely useful to show that these specimens are being used, at scale, in real, recent research — it’s not just irrelevant stamp collecting.

Sometimes the NHM, London specimen catalogue has incorrect, incomplete or outdated data about it’s own specimens – there is better, newer data about them in the published literature that needs to be fed back to the museum.

An example: specimen “BMNH 2013.2.13.3” is listed in the online catalogue on the NHM open data portal as Petrochromis nov. sp. By searching the literature for BMNH specimens, I happened to find where the new species of this specimen was described: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10228-014-0396-9 as Petrochromis horii Takahashi & Koblmüller, 2014. It’s also worth noting this specimen has associated nucleotide sequence data on GenBank here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/AB850677.1 .

Having talked a lot about the 5 stars of open data in the context of research data recently, I wonder… wouldn’t it be really useful to make 4 or 5 star linked open data around biological specimens? From Rod Page, I gather this is part of the grand goal of creating a biodiversity knowledge graph.

For this project, I will be focussing on linking BMNH (NHM, London) specimen identifiers with publication identifiers (e.g. DOIs) and GenBank accession numbers.

 

What questions to ask?

Where have NHM, London specimens been used/published? What are the most used NHM, London specimens in research? How does NHM, London specimen usage compare to other major museums such as the AMNH (New York) or MNHN (Paris).

Materials for Mining

1.) The PubMedCentral Open Access subset – a million papers, but mainly biomedical research.
2.) Open Access & free access journals that not included in PMC
3.) figshare – particularly useful if nothing else, as a means of mining PLOS ONE supplementary materials (I read recently that essentially 90% of figshare is actually PLOS ONE supp. material! See Table 2)
4.) select subscription access journals – annoyingly hard to get access to in bulk, but important to include as sadly much natural history research is still published behind paywalls.

 

(very) Preliminary Results

The PMC OA subset is fantastic & really facilitates this kind of research – I wish ALL of the biodiversity literature was aggregated like (some) of the open access biomedical literature is. You can literally just download a million papers, click, and go do your research. It facilitates rigorous research by allowing full machine access to full texts.

Simple grep searches for ‘NHMUK’ & ‘BMNH [A-Z0-9][0-9]’, two of the commonest citation forms by which specimens may be cited reveal many thousands of possible specimen mentions in the PMC OA subset I must now look through to clean-up & link-up. In terms of journals, these ‘hits’ in the PMC OA subset come from (in no particular order): PLOS ONE, Parasites & Vectors, PeerJ, ZooKeys, Toxins, Zoo J Linn Soc, Parasite, Frontiers in Zoology, Ecology & Evolution, BMC Research Notes, Biology Letters, BMC Evolutionary Biology, Aquatic Biosystems, BMC Biology, Molecular Ecology, Journal of Insect Science, Nucleic Acids Research and more…!

specimen “BMNH 86.10.4.2″ is a great example to lookup / link-up on the NHM Open Data Portal: http://data.nhm.ac.uk/specimen/8559613e-f2a3-447c-aa1a-d476600d3293 the catalogue record has 7 associated images openly available under CC BY, so I can liven up this post by including an image of the specimen (below)! I found this specimen used in a PLOS ONE paper: Walmsley et al. (2013) Why the Long Face? The Mechanics of Mandibular Symphysis Proportions in Crocodiles. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0053873 (in the text caption for figure 1 to be precise).

© The Trustees of the Natural History Museum, London. Licensed for reuse under CC BY 4.0. Source.

 

 

Questions Arising

How to find and extract mentions of NHM, London specimens in papers published in Science, Nature & PNAS ? There are sure to be many! I’m assuming the last 15 years worth of research published in these journals will be difficult to scrape – they would be quite likely to block my IP address if I tried to. Furthermore, all the actual science is typically buried in supplementary file PDFs in these journals not in the ‘main’ short article. Will Science, Nature & PNAS  let me download all their supp material from the last 15 years? Is this facilitated at all? How do people actually do rigorous research when the contents of supplementary data files published in these journals are so undiscoverable & inaccessible to search?

 

It’s clear to me there are many separate divisions when it comes to discoverability of research. There’s the divide between open access (highly discoverable & searchable) and subscription access (less discoverable, less searchable, depending upon publisher-restrictions). There’s also the divide between the ‘paper’ (more searchable) and ‘supplementary materials’ (less easily searchable). Finally, there’s also the divide between textual and non-textual media: a huge amount of knowledge in the scientific literature is trapped in non-textual forms such as figure images which simply aren’t instantly searchable by textual methods (figure captions DO NOT contain all of the information of the figure image! Also, OCR is time consuming and error-prone especially on the heterogeneity of fonts and orientation of words in most figures). For example, looking across thousands of papers with phylogenetic analyses published in the journal IJSEM, 95% of the taxa / GenBank accessions used in them are only mentioned in the figure image, nowhere else in the paper or supplementary materials as text! This needs to change.

 

As should be obvious by now; this is a very preliminary post, just to let people know what I’m doing and what I’m thinking. In my next post I’ll detail some of the subscription access journals I’ve been text mining for specimens, and the barriers I’ve encountered when trying to do so.

 

Bonus question: How should I publish this annotation data?

Easiest would be to release all annotations as a .csv on the NHM open data portal with 3 columns where each column mimics ‘subject’  ‘predicate’ ‘object’ notation: Specimen, “is mentioned in”, Article DOI.

But if I wanted to publish something a little better & a little more formal, what kind of RDF vocabulary can I use to describe “occurs in” or “is mentioned in”. What would be the most useful format to publish this data in so that it can be re-used and extended to become part of the biodiversity knowledge graph and have lasting value?

Making a journal scraper

May 13th, 2015 | Posted by rmounce in Content Mining - (5 Comments)

Yesterday, I made a journal scraper for the International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology (IJSEM).

Fortunately, Richard Smith-Unna and the ContentMine team have done most of the hard work in creating the general framework with quickscrape (open-source and available on github), I just had to modify the available journal-scrapers to work with IJSEM.

How did I do it?

Find an open access article in the target journal e..g James et al (2015) Kazachstania yasuniensis sp. nov., an ascomycetous yeast species found in mainland Ecuador and on the Galápagos

In your browser, view the HTML source of the full text page, in the Chrome/Chromium browser the keyboard shortcut to do this is Ctrl-U. You should then see something like this, perhaps with less funky highlighting colours:

I based my IJSEM scraper on the existing set of scraper definitions for eLife because I know both journals use similar underlying technology to create their webpages.

The first bit I clearly had to modify was the extraction of publisher. In the eLife scraper this works:

but at IJSEM that information isn’t specified with ‘citation_publisher’, instead it’s tagged as ‘DC.Publisher’ so I modified the element to reflect that:

The license and copyright information extraction is even more different between eLife and IJSEM, here’s the correct scraper for the former:

and here’s how I changed it to extract that information from IJSEM pages:

The XPath needed is completely different. The information is inside a div, not a meta tag.

 

Hardest of all though were the full size figures and the supplementary materials files – they’re not directly linked from the full text HTML page which is rather annoying. Richard had to help me out with these by creating “followables”:

In his words:

any element can ‘follow’ any other element in the elements array, just by adding the key-value pair "follow": "element_name" to the element that does the following. If you want to follow an element, but don’t want the followed element to be included in the results, you add it to a followables array instead of the elements array. The followed array must capture a URL.

 

 

The bottom-line is, it might look complicated initially, but actually it’s not that hard to write a fully-functioning  journal scraper definition, for use with quickscrape. I’m off to go and create one for Taylor & Francis journals now :)

 

Wouldn’t it be nice if all scholarly journals presented their content on the web in the same way, so we didn’t have to write a thousand different scrapers to download it? That’d be just too helpful wouldn’t it?

 

 

[Update: I’ve submitted this idea as a FORCE11 £1K Challenge research proposal 2015-01-13. I may be unemployed from April 2015 onwards (unsolicited job offers welcome!), so I certainly might find myself with plenty of time on my hands to properly get this done…!]

Inspired by something I heard Stephen Curry say recently, and with a little bit of help from Jo McIntyre I’ve started a project to compare EuropePMC author manuscripts with their publisher-made (mangled?) ‘version of record’ twins.

How different are author manuscripts from the publisher version of record? Or put it another way, what value do publishers add to each manuscript? With the aggregation & linkage provided by EuropePMC – an excellent service – we can rigorously test this.

 

In this blog post I’ll go through one paper I chose at random from EuropePMC:

Sinha, N., Manohar, S., and Husain, M. 2013. Impulsivity and apathy in parkinson’s disease. J Neuropsychol 7:255-283.  doi: 10.1111/jnp.12013 (publisher version) PMCID: PMC3836240 (EuropePMC version)

Method

A quick & dirty analysis with a simple tool that’s easy to use & available to everyone:

pdftotext -layout     (you’re welcome to suggest a better method by the way, I like hacking PDFs)

(P) = Publisher-version , (A) = Author-version

Manual Post-processing – remove the header and footer crud from each e.g. “262
Nihal Sinha et al.” (P) and “J Neuropsychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2013 November 21.” (A)

Automatic Post-processing – I’m not interested in numbers or punctuation or words of 3-letters or less so I applied this bash-one-liner:

strings $inputfile | tr ‘[A-Z]’ ‘[a-z]’ | sed ‘s/[[:punct:]]/ /g’ | sed ‘s/[[:digit:]]/ /g’ |  sed s/’ ‘/\\n/g | awk ‘length > 3′ | sort | uniq -c | sort -nr > $outputfile

Then I just manually diff’d the resulting word lists – there’s so little difference it’s easy for this particular pair.

 

Results

The correspondence line changed slightly from this in the author version:

Correspondence should be addressed to Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences and Department Experimental Psychology, Oxford University, Oxford OX3 9DU, UK (masud.husain@ndcn.ox.ac.uk). . (A)

To this in the publisher version (I’ve added bold-face to highlight the changes):

Correspondence should be addressed to Masud Husain, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences and Department Experimental Psychology, Oxford University, Oxford OX3 9DU, UK (e-mail: masud.husain@ndcn.ox.ac.uk). (P)

 

Reference styling has been changed. Why I don’t know, seems a completely pointless change. Either style seems perfectly functional to me tbh:

Drijgers RL, Dujardin K, Reijnders JSAM, Defebvre L, Leentjens AFG. Validation of diagnostic criteria for apathy in Parkinson’s disease. Parkinsonism & Related Disorders. 2010; 16:656–660. doi:10.1016/j.parkreldis.2010.08.015. [PubMed: 20864380] (A)

to this in the publisher version:

Drijgers, R. L., Dujardin, K., Reijnders, J. S. A. M., Defebvre, L., & Leentjens, A. F. G. (2010). Validation of diagnostic criteria for apathy in Parkinson’s disease. Parkinsonism & Related Disorders, 16, 656–660. doi:10.1016/j.parkreldis.2010.08.015 (P)

In the publisher-version only (P) “Continued” has been added below some tables to acknowledge that they overflow on the next page. Arguably the publisher has made the tables worse as they’ve put them sideways (landscape) so they now overflow onto other pages. In the author-version (A) they are portrait-orientated and so hence each fit on one page entirely.

 

Finally, and most intriguingly, some of the figure-text comes out only in the publisher-version (P). In the author-version (A) the figure text is entirely image pixels, not copyable text. Yet the publisher version has introduced some clearly imperfect figure text. Look closely and you’ll see in some places e.g. “Dyskinetic state” of figure 2 c) in (P), the ‘ti’ has been ligatured and is copied out as a theta symbol:

DyskineƟc state

 

Discussion

 

I don’t know about you, but for this particular article, it doesn’t seem like the publisher has really done all that much aside from add their own header & footer material, some copyright stamps & their journal logo – oh, and ‘organizing peer-review’. How much do we pay academic publishers for these services? Billions? Is it worth it?

I plan to sample at least 100 ‘twinned’ manuscript-copies and see what the average difference is between author-manuscripts and publisher-versions. If the above is typical of most then this will be really bad news for the legacy academic journal publishers… Watch this space!

 

Thoughts or comments as to how to improve the method, or relevant papers to read on this subject are welcome. Collaboration welcome too – this is an activity that scales well between collaborators.

I’m proud to announce an interesting public output from my BBSRC-funded postdoc project:
PLUTo: Phyloinformatic Literature Unlocking Tools. Software for making published phyloinformatic data discoverable, open, and reusable

MOAR PHYLOGENY!

Screenshot of some of the PLOS ONE phylogeny figure collection on Flickr

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I’ve made openly available my first-pass filter of PLOS ONE phylogeny figures (I’m not in any way claiming this is *all* of them).

This curated & tagged image collection is on Flickr for easy browsing: http://bit.ly/PLOStrees

As well as on Github for version control, open archiving, and collaboration (I have remote collaborators):

https://github.com/rossmounce/P1-phylo-part1

https://github.com/rossmounce/P1-phylo-part2

https://github.com/rossmounce/P1-phylo-part3

https://github.com/rossmounce/P1-phylo-part4

(Github doesn’t like repositories over 1GB so I’ve had to split-up the content between 4 separate repositories)

 

Why?

The aim of the PLUTo project is to re-extract & liberate phylogenetic data & associated metadata from the research literature. Sadly, only ~4% of modern published phylogenetic analysis studies make their underlying data available. Another study finds that if you ask the authors for this data, only 16% will be kind enough to reply with the requested data!

This particular data type is a cornerstone of modern evolutionary biology. You’ll find phylogenetic analyses across a whole host of journal subjects – medical, ecological, natural history, palaeontology… There are also many different ways in which this data can be re-used e.g. supertrees  & comparative cladistics. Not to mention, simple validation studies &/or analyses which extend-upon or map new data on to a phylogeny. It’s really useful data and we should be archiving it for future re-use and re-analysis. To my great delight, this is what I’m being paid to attempt to do for my first postdoc; on a grant I co-wrote – finding & liberating phylogenetic data for everyone!

 

Why PLOS ONE?

 

  •  It’s a BOAI-compliant open access journal that publishes most articles under CC BY, with a few under CC0.
    • This means I can openly re-publish figures online (provided sufficient attribution is given) — no need to worry about DMCA takedown notices or ‘getting sued’! This makes the process of research much easier. Private, non-public, access-restricted repositories for collaboration are a hassle I’d rather do without.
  • It’s a high-volume ‘megajournal’ publishing ~200 articles per day, many of which include phylogenetic analyses.
    • Thus its worthwhile establishing a regular daily or weekly method for parsing-out phylogenetic tree figures from this journal
  • Killer feature: as far as I know, PLOS are the only publisher to embed rich metadata inside their figure image files.
    • This makes satisfying the CC BY licence trivially easy — sufficient attribution metadata is already embedded in the file. Just ensure that wherever you’re uploading the file to doesn’t wipe this embedded data, hence why I chose Flickr as my initial upload platform.

 

What does this enable or make easier?

 

On it’s own, this collection doesn’t do much, this is still an early stage – but it gives us an important insight into the prevalence of certain types of visual display-style that researchers are using:

‘radial’ phylogenies

https://www.flickr.com/search?user_id=123621741%40N08&sort=relevance&text=radial

Source: Zerillo et al 2013 PLOS ONE. Carbohydrate-Active Enzymes in Pythium and Their Role in Plant Cell Wall and Storage Polysaccharide Degradation

Source: Zerillo et al 2013 PLOS ONE. Carbohydrate-Active Enzymes in Pythium and Their Role in Plant Cell Wall and Storage Polysaccharide Degradation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘geophylogeny’ (phylogeny displayed relative to a map of some sort, 2D or 3D)

https://www.flickr.com/search?user_id=123621741%40N08&sort=relevance&text=geophylogeny

Source: Guo et al 2012 PLOS ONE. Evolution and Biogeography of the Slipper Orchids: Eocene Vicariance of the Conduplicate Genera in the Old and New World Tropics

Source: Guo et al 2012 PLOS ONE. Evolution and Biogeography of the Slipper Orchids: Eocene Vicariance of the Conduplicate Genera in the Old and New World Tropics

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘timescaled’ (phylogenies where the branch lengths are proportional to units of time or geological periods)
https://www.flickr.com/search?user_id=123621741%40N08&sort=relevance&text=timescaled

Source: Pol et al 2014 PLOS ONE. A New Notosuchian from the Late Cretaceous of Brazil and the Phylogeny of Advanced Notosuchians

Source: Pol et al 2014 PLOS ONE. A New Notosuchian from the Late Cretaceous of Brazil and the Phylogeny of Advanced Notosuchians

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘splitstrees’

https://www.flickr.com/search?user_id=123621741%40N08&sort=relevance&text=splitstree

Source: McDowell et al 2013 PLOS ONE. The Opportunistic Pathogen Propionibacterium acnes: Insights into Typing, Human Disease, Clonal Diversification and CAMP Factor Evolution

Source: McDowell et al 2013 PLOS ONE. The Opportunistic Pathogen Propionibacterium acnes: Insights into Typing, Human Disease, Clonal Diversification and CAMP Factor Evolution

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Arguably it also facilitates complex searches for specific types of phylogeny

e.g. analyses using cytochrome b
https://www.flickr.com/search/?w=123621741@N08&q=%22cyt%20b%22%20OR%20%22cytochrome%20b%22
(you could use PLOS’s API to do this, particularly their figure/table caption search field — but you’d get a lot of false positives — this is an expert-curated collection that has filtered-out non-phylo figures)

In my initial roadmap, the plan is to do PLOS ONE, the other PLOS journals, then BMC journals, then possibly Zootaxa & Phytotaxa (Magnolia Press). There will be a Github-based website for the project soon, lots still to do…!

 

Want to know more / collaborate / critique ?

Conferences:

I’ve got an accepted lightning talk at iEvoBio in Raleigh, NC later this year about the PLUTo project.

As well as an accepted lightning talk at the Bioinformatics Open Source Conference (BOSC) in Boston, MA.

Elsewise, contact me via twitter @rmounce , the comment section on this blog post, or email ross dot mounce <at> gmail dot com