Background: In many genomics projects, numerous lists containing biological identifiers are produced. Often it is useful to see the overlap between different lists, enabling researchers to quickly observe similarities and differences between the data sets they are analyzing. One of the most popular methods to visualize the overlap and differences between data sets is the Venn diagram: a diagram consisting of two or more circles in which each circle corresponds to a data set, and the overlap between the circles corresponds to the overlap between the data sets. Venn diagrams are especially useful when they are 'area-proportional' i.e. the sizes of the circles and the overlaps correspond to the sizes of the data sets. Currently there are no programs available that can create area-proportional Venn diagrams connected to a wide range of biological databases.

For over a decade the term “Big data” has been used to describe the rapid increase in volume, variety and velocity of information available, not just in medical research but in almost every aspect of our lives. As scientists, we now have the capacity to rapidly generate, store and analyse data that, only a few years ago, would have taken many years to compile. However, “Big data” no longer means what it once did. The term has expanded and now refers not to just large data volume, but to our increasing ability to analyse and interpret those data. Tautologies such as “data analytics” and “data science” have emerged to describe approaches to the volume of available information as it grows ever larger. New methods dedicated to improving data collection, storage, cleaning, processing and interpretation continue to be developed, although not always by, or for, medical researchers. Exploiting new tools to extract meaning from large volume information has the potential to drive real change in clinical practice, from personalized therapy and intelligent drug design to population screening and electronic health record mining. As ever, where new technology promises “Big Advances,” significant challenges remain. Here we discuss both the opportunities and challenges posed to biomedical research by our increasing ability to tackle large datasets. Important challenges include the need for standardization of data content, format, and clinical definitions, a heightened need for collaborative networks with sharing of both data and expertise and, perhaps most importantly, a need to reconsider how and when analytic methodology is taught to medical researchers. We also set “Big data” analytics in context: recent advances may appear to promise a revolution, sweeping away conventional approaches to medical science. However, their real promise lies in their synergy with, not replacement of, classical hypothesis-driven methods. The generation of novel, data-driven hypotheses based on interpretable models will always require stringent validation and experimental testing. Thus, hypothesis-generating research founded on large datasets adds to, rather than replaces, traditional hypothesis driven science. Each can benefit from the other and it is through using both that we can improve clinical practice.

Often the definition of orthology is incorrectly interpreted as a prediction of proteins that are functionally equivalent across species, while in fact it only defines the existence of a common ancestor for a gene in different species. However, it has been demonstrated that orthologs often reveal significant functional similarity. Therefore, the quality of the orthology prediction is an important factor in the transfer of functional annotations (and other related information). To identify protein pairs with the highest possible functional similarity, it is important to qualify ortholog identification methods.

Our current knowledge of the general factor requirement in transcription by the three mammalian RNA polymerases is based on a small number of model promoters.Here, we present a comprehensive chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP)-on-chip analysis for 28 transcription factors on a large set of known and novel TATA-binding protein (TBP)-binding sites experimentally identified via ChIP cloning. A large fraction of identified TBP-binding sites is located in introns or lacks a gene/mRNA annotation and is found to direct transcription. Integrated analysis of the ChIP-on-chip data and functional studies revealed that TAF12 hitherto regarded as RNA polymerase II (RNAP II)-specific was found to be also involved in RNAP I transcription. Distinct profiles for general transcription factors and TAF-containing complexes were uncovered for RNAP II promoters located in CpG and non-CpG islands suggesting distinct transcription initiation pathways. Our study broadens the spectrum of general transcription factor function and uncovers a plethora of novel, functional TBP-binding sites in the human genome. The EMBO Journal (2007) 26, 944-954.