Talk:Computational biology

Centers for Computational Biology

What does everyone think about adding the developers of NAMD and VMD at the UIUC Center for Biophysics and Computational Biology, or more specifically the NIH center for macromolecular modeling and bioinformatics.

Redirect

I've noticed that there are two pages with the same name here:

 * Computational biology

 * Computational Biology  --> Redirect to --> Bioinformatics

I understand the definition and scope of the fields are still developing and debatable but we should at least try to acknowledge them clearly. There should be references in scientific journals discussing this that could be referenced. Semanticity 00:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: This page should redirect to Computational Biology.

• Computational Biology could contain a short description of what it is, specifically, but should be careful not to overlap with Bioinformatics.

Please vote:

• agree - content here is already becomming redundant with 'bioinformatics' page, which is why the original Computational Biology page was merged. Distinction based on the case of the letter b is confusing.

• disagree - Granted having the capitalized link redirect to a different page is confusing. Biology is typically not capitalized in fields like Evolutionary biology Developmental biology Microbiology Marine biology Human biology Molecular biology but is in Environmental Biology (which however redirects to Ecology). So Computational Biology should redirect to Computational biology as in the rest of Biology articles. I will fix the redirect link from B to b, but see my next proposal. Jethero^Talk 21:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: Merge this page with Bioinformatics and redirect to Bioinformatics

• agree See the recurring unsettled debate about what is the difference between the two on Talk:Bioinformatics to realize that the fields are hard to separate by any strict definitions, but that at least some people think there is a difference between these fields. However, it hasn't been demonstrated that we really have enough willing authors to properly clean up ONE site, let alone TWO and try to coordinate their overlap. I say we focus on Bioinformatics unless someone takes the time to write a really nice article on what exactly is Computational biology (irrespective of Bioinformatics) Jethero^Talk 21:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• disagree There are some clear distinctions between the two, and trying to merge them together will only confuse matters. It is annoying that large chunks of the Bioinformatics article seem to be explaining why it differs from CompBio. I agree that both articles need work, but lack of willing authors isn't a good reason to delete articles. Spin2cool 05:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

In 2000 a NIH committee gave a working definition of the two, though recognizing that no definition could ever eliminate overlap. http://www.bisti.nih.gov/docs/compubiodef.pdf

• Disagree For the reason above. As it has been under consideration for a very long time. And as it seems to have been a consensus on the bioinformatics article about not merging, I am going to be bold and remove the proposal. Lord Metroid 18:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Publications

• These publications are not directly discussed in the article. But they might be helpful resources for the talk page to I've kept them. Jethero^Talk 22:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Journal of Computational Biology, a peer-reviewed journal providing a forum for the communication of technical issues associated with the analysis, management, and visualization of cellular information at the molecular level.

• Bioinformatics The leading peer-reviewed journal of the field, by Oxford University Press. State of the art advances in the promising and rapid developing field of Bioinformatics. (Former title CABIOS, Comptuter Applications in BIOsciences)

• IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics, a peer-reviewed journal on computational approaches to the topic.

References

• These references are not specifically associated with any statements on the page and are therefor of limited use. Where they might even be related, they would be more appropriate on a page entitled 'Books about Bioinformatics' or the like. I have nonetheless included them here rather than delete them outright.

• Baldi, P and Brunak, S, Bioinformatics: The Machine Learning Approach, 2nd edition. MIT Press, 2001. ISBN 0-262-02506-X
• Claverie, J.M. and C. Notredame, Bioinformatics for Dummies. Wiley, 2003. ISBN 0-7645-1696-5
• Cristianini, N. and Hahn, M. Introduction to Computational Genomics, Cambridge University Press, 2006. (ISBN-13: 9780521671910 | ISBN-10: 0521671914)
• Durbin, R., S. Eddy, A. Krogh and G. Mitchison, Biological sequence analysis. Cambridge University Press, 1998. ISBN 0-521-62971-3
• Kohane, et al. Microarrays for an Integrative Genomics. The MIT Press, 2002. ISBN 0-262-11271-X
• Michael S. Waterman, Introduction to Computational Biology: Sequences, Maps and Genomes. CRC Press, 1995. ISBN 0-412-99391-0
• Mount, David W. Bioinformatics: Sequence and Genome Analysis Spring Harbor Press, May 2002. ISBN 0-87969-608-7
• Pevzner, Pavel A. Computational Molecular Biology: An Algorithmic Approach The MIT Press, 2000. ISBN 0-262-16197-4

virtual cell

software —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.141.140.162 (talk) 08:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Presentation Notes

The intro should try not mention specific techniques e.g. Systems biology often usesdifferential equation to model the interactome but is certainly not limited to that technique. (I edited this one but left the rest in). Same with genomics... not just microarrays etc.

Computational biology is an integrative approach to evidence and theories. This should be the main point of the introduction with links to stubs where appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.143.230 (talk) 12:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Anacronism in introduction

The sentence "By 1982, information was being shared amongst researchers through the use of punch cards." Seems to extend the use of punch cards by several years as floppy disks and mag tape were in wide usage for sharing. Is there a historical reference to this?

Jahbini (talk) 03:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Broken reference

Hello there. I just followed the link at reference 17 and got a 404 error. It may be that the site is down, but it may also be that the page has been removed. Thank you. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 17:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Computational biology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120905155331/http://www.bisti.nih.gov/docs/CompuBioDef.pdf to http://www.bisti.nih.gov/docs/compubiodef.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.iscb.org/cms_addon/cosi_reporting_system/COSIs. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. lovkal (talk) 22:19, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

GOCE Review

....currently under way. Bddmagic (talk) 17:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Trying to make things a wee bit less science-crufty and a bit more comfortable for the average reader. --Bddmagic (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

All done.--Bddmagic (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)