|
|
|
|
LEADER |
01943 am a22002533u 4500 |
001 |
116419 |
042 |
|
|
|a dc
|
100 |
1 |
0 |
|a Berger Leighton, Bonnie
|e author
|
100 |
1 |
0 |
|a Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
|e contributor
|
100 |
1 |
0 |
|a Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
|e contributor
|
100 |
1 |
0 |
|a Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Mathematics
|e contributor
|
100 |
1 |
0 |
|a Berger Leighton, Bonnie
|e contributor
|
100 |
1 |
0 |
|a Daniels, Noah
|e contributor
|
100 |
1 |
0 |
|a Yu, Yun William
|e contributor
|
700 |
1 |
0 |
|a Daniels, Noah
|e author
|
700 |
1 |
0 |
|a Yu, Yun William
|e author
|
245 |
0 |
0 |
|a Computational biology in the 21st century
|
260 |
|
|
|b Association for Computing Machinery (ACM),
|c 2018-06-19T18:04:45Z.
|
856 |
|
|
|z Get fulltext
|u http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/116419
|
520 |
|
|
|a Computational biologists answer biological and biomedical questions by using computation in support of-or in place of-laboratory procedures, hoping to obtain more accurate answers at a greatly reduced cost. The past two decades have seen unprecedented technological progress with regard to generating biological data; next-generation sequencing, mass spectrometry, microarrays, cryo-electron microscopy, and other highthroughput approaches have led to an explosion of data. However, this explosion is a mixed blessing. On the one hand, the scale and scope of data should allow new insights into genetic and infectious diseases, cancer, basic biology, and even human migration patterns. On the other hand, researchers are generating datasets so massive that it has become difficult to analyze them to discover patterns that give clues to the underlying biological processes.
|
520 |
|
|
|a National Institutes of Health. (U.S.) ( grant GM108348)
|
520 |
|
|
|a Hertz Foundation
|
655 |
7 |
|
|a Article
|
773 |
|
|
|t Communications of the ACM
|