Julien ColombView Profile
It would be great to have some physiolgy data (electrophy) to have a guess about the effect of the PKC in the motorneurons (?)… Do you know if there is a paradigm to look at LTP and LTD at the MNJ?
I was on a meetup of corporate semantic web last Tuesday. These people are using semantic web technologies (making machine readable content based on ontological terms and relation between these terms) to improve the efficacy of private companies. For instance, they work on ways to improve wiki contents which may be produced in a company. This corresponds at using ontological term to annotate the wiki content and other related technologies. This can be used to find an expert in one category (=somebody who’s posts are rarely corrected on a specific subject).
What is the scientific community (the one which should be leading the way actually) doing during that time: we use text search in “keywords” and titles to find the appropriate literature, that we have to read thouroughly to drive our one conclusions about these different parts… At least, that is what we do 90% of the time, and we all know how inaccurate this can be. Experimental results may be translated into a machine readable content, why aren’t we doing it (it could make everything that much simpler, faster and more accurate)?
The answer: 1. there is no tool nor database where we could do it. 2. Scientists do not have the time to do it, they are over-pressurized to produce data, not to make it reusable or machine readable.
How to push people to use the semantic web technologies, how to ease this use, should it be done by the authors or by the community, pre or post publication, what ontology tool to use,… What can we do? Is anyone asking these questions around? Does a platform like researchgate be a way to introduce this, or should we go for a public solution, inside pubmed for example?
Is any of you asking/answering these questions?
By the way, this post is tagged by none-ontological terms, a shame?
CeTrAn is our software to analyse trajectory data, written in R it is free and open source . It was designed to analyse data obtained in the Buridan’s experiment setup. I am now trying to have a larger scope and incorporate different type of data:, for instance:
– Buridan’s experiment done with a different tracker
– Walking honeybee tracking in a rectangular arena, with a rewarded target
– Animal (flies/bees) walking on a ball, using open- or closed-loop experiment setup
– trajectory data obtained from the pysolo software (flies)
– larval crawling data
I want to include an automatic depository of the data in a database. Automatic entries in Figshare is for instance possible. (see older posts). My problem is to find a way to treat the data such that:
1. the raw data is uploaded
2. all data is uploaded also if we use only the centroid displacement (in some data file the head position is also given)
3. the data can be reused and data obtained in different lab, animal, setup can be compared. (data should be organized such that it can be searched and queried).
4. probably other elements that I do not think of….
My main problem: I have nearly no experience in data management/design, ontology or semantic web. Here is a first draft of a database structure that I have thought of. Every feedback would be welcome:
I have just realized that there is no “new comment” section, so we have access only to the last 3 comments. Since there is also no way to have them as rss feeds (only public posts are feeded), it makes it possible to loose track of comments, if somebody (like I just did) look and comment the posts only once in a while.
Is there a way to manage this?
Figure of result, data, raw data and code uploaded automatically. Still need to get a way to get the statistical analysis published along with it.
I will try to make a video to highlight how fast and easy it is once the code is written.
Bjoern, when do you want to present this? Do I have time or should I do it tomorrow night ? :-)
A lot of things I learned at the neurofly. First my old friend Benjamin is doing a great postdoc in Bruno van Swinderen lab. It was great to see his data on isoflurane effects and the correlation between sleep disorder and sensitivity to anesthesia.
More related to our interests, I learned that Paul Tchénio has now a prototype to visualize neuronal activity in about half of the fly brain at a decent frequency. It may be interesting to get in touch with him again.
Andre Fiala is doing/has already done the TDC-Flp construct and is using his own UAS-stop-TRPA1 line to get a subset of octopaminergic neurons. Christine will contact him soon to have more information and maybe start a collaboration with him. The student was not at his/her poster when we went there, and we could not talk directly to him/her.
I nice talk by F. Mohammad (Singapore) showed that centrophobism can be associated with anxiety: the majority of treatments used with mices (for instance immobilisation in a pipet tip) also induce more (or less for some treatments) centrophobisms in flies. I told him about the CeTrAn, he said he will look at it. (his flies were in a squared box, with their wings untouched).
Jhl21 (receptor for JH) change of larval behavior at the wandering stage (go slower and turn more): it acts at the NMJ to change the clustering of glutamate receptors. Similar thing may happen during the first hour of life of the fly, when they become phototactic ?
A nice poster from the Heisenberg’s lab show that flies do have a preferred 0 torque. Even when giving some closed loop drift, the histogram of torque suggest that the preference for the 0 torque is still there (non-uniform distribution around the +1 torque which stabilize the drift. It seems the distribution around the 0 torque is seen only if you have long enough data, I told them I would ask Satish to look at his distributions. This emphasizes why we need to be very careful in preparing the fly for our experiments…
I may have to look at the OK6 Gal4 line for motorneurons, and new RNAi lines seem to be available for PKC53e and FoxP…
I also talked to Flybase people, David was there. It seems the Buridan results should lead to 2 different entries: one linking each genotype to a dichotomic description of the phenotype (“mutant1” – “has larger”- “median_speed”) and one to the raw data and analysis. This will not be easy to automatize, but looks interesting.
I am probably forgetting a couple of things in addition to my discussion with Anette Schenk and her student Anna about FoxP..
looking for a platform to share our trajectory data, I got interested in buzz data. They started a little contest, and since it seemed to be a nice way to test the functionality of the web site, I participated.
I downloaded the dataset of water consumption in Canada for the last years. The data is split by year and ward. I focused on the total water consumption and ran a little analysis.
A simple ANOVA shows that the total consumption is dependent on the year, the ward and the combination of the two (this means that the differences between years consumption is not equivalent in the distinct wards). In the visualization, one can see that the mean consumption decreased in the last three years (black dots are means of consumption for each year). In the trace for each ward, we can pick particular wards with specific results. For instance ward 11 had a huge increase in consumption in 2002; and ward 2 decrease its (relative to the other very important) consumption every year since 2002.
Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F) data$Year 1 6.2445e+13 6.2445e+13 110.0587 < 2.2e-16 *** data$Ward 43 5.1300e+15 1.1930e+14 210.2682 < 2.2e-16 *** data$Year:data$Ward 43 1.0535e+14 2.4500e+12 4.3181 2.399e-15 *** Residuals 396 2.2468e+14 5.6738e+11 --- Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
The test show that it is quite easy to take data and perform its own analysis. Buzz data is not (yet?) very good in updating data, since there is no way to directly add data (in this case, once the 2011 data come, it will be needed to download the dataset, add the new data and reupload the new dataset. Not very convenient.
The new version of the analysis software is online. It should be clean and will be the version coming with the paper.
There is a new feature in thunderbird that allow to use google calender efficiently.
you need to install the new thunderbird (e-mail client from mozilla), install the “provider for google calendar” add on, and the lightning add on. then see: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Calendar:Using_Lightning_with_Google_Calendars for an explanation how to enter each calender. It seems to work fine and allow copy/paste function !