Gas station without pumps

2014 October 13

Practice, teaching, or genetics

Filed under: Uncategorized — gasstationwithoutpumps @ 10:04
Tags: , , ,

Mark Guzdial, in The 10K Hour Rule: Deliberate Practice leads to Expertise, and Teaching can trump Genetics | Computing Education Blog, responds to a Slate article claiming that genetics is more important than practice:

Here’s my argument summarized. The Slate authors and Macnamara et al. dismiss the 10K hour rule too lightly, and their explanation of genetic/innate basis for expertise is too simple. Practice is not the same as deliberate practice, or practice with a teacher. Expertise is learned, and we start learning at birth with expertise developing sometimes in ways not directly connected to the later activity. The important part is that we are able to learn to overcome some genetic/innate disparities with good teaching. We shouldn’t be giving up on developing expertise because we don’t have the genes. We should be thinking about how we can teach in order to develop expertise.

Mark’s blog is read (or at least commented on) mainly by teachers of computer science, so he is largely preaching to the choir here. I would like to believe that my teaching makes a difference—I spend almost all my time teaching, grading, or preparing to teach.

I do believe that most students in my classes leave the class with better skills than they came in with.  Whether that is due to my teaching or just to the students being forced to practice is somewhat difficult to determine—to a large extent my teaching style consists of forcing students to practice skills that they’ve generally ignored in the past (like in-program documentation) and providing them detailed feedback on their practice.  I’d like to believe that the feedback (both individual and group) matters, since I give up my weekends to provide the feedback.  If only the practice matters, then I could do as many of my colleagues do and just do I/O testing or delegate the feedback to untrained undergraduate graders.

So I have a bias towards believing Mark’s claim that teaching matters, and that there is a difference between different sorts of practice by students.

But the outcomes for individual students seem to depend more on the students coming in than on what I do.  Those students who come in better prepared or “innately” smarter progress faster than those who come in behind, so the end result of the teaching is that differences among the students are amplified, not reduced. Whether the differences in the students coming in are due to prior practice, prior teaching, or genetics is not really knowable, but also not really relevant.

Mark claims that “Genetics/innate starts at birth, no later”, which is somewhat of a simplification.  Although innate differences are present at birth (by definition), they may not be expressed until much later, either due to the developmental program that coordinates gene expression or due to environmental triggers.  So phenotypic differences may not appear until much later (genes for patterns of facial hair among men generally make no difference until puberty, for example).

He claims that

If you’re going to make the genetics/innate argument, you have to start tracking participants at birth. Otherwise, there’s an awful lot that might add to expertise that’s not going to get counted in any practice logs.

I’ve only had one child that I have taught from birth on (and lots of others also taught him), and we all know the uselessness of sample size=1, so it is not possible for me (and probably for anyone) to track participants from birth for a significant sample size.  But there are certainly ways to estimate the heritability of talent without tracking all activity since birth—the twin studies that he dismisses attempt to do precisely that.  (Some of the twin studies are well done and some are useless anecdotal reports—but there is substantial evidence that some talents have a substantial heritable component.)

Of course, it is always hard to pick apart whether “nature” or “nurture” is responsible for a particular difference in talents, since there is a large feedback loop.  Small differences in initial results can result in differences in how much pleasure practice provides and how much support is given, which can in turn affect how much practice is done and how valuable the practice is.  So small differences in “innate” talent can be amplified to large differences in outcomes.

I’d like to believe Mark’s claim that “Hours spent in practice with a good teacher are going to contribute more to expertise than hours spent without a teacher,” and that I’m a good enough teacher to make that difference.  But I fear that there is a lot of confirmation bias here—I want to believe that what I do matters, so I accept articles and studies that confirm that belief.

Looking back over my own education, I had a few teachers who helped me progress, and a few who probably delayed my learning by convincing me that the subject they were teaching was unutterably tedious, but a lot of my learning was on my own without a teacher. Sometimes the initial learning was with a teacher (often my Dad, when I was child, see Thanks, Dad), but subsequent learning was pretty much entirely from books and solo practice.  It is hard to say whether I would have achieved more expertise with teachers—some of the stuff I learned was esoteric enough that there were no teachers and I had to teach myself.  Other material was more commonly available, but I came at it from an unusual direction, so that the conventional ways of teaching the material would have been a very bad match for me.

Having an expert mentor around can make difference, and structured practice (such as I assign to my students) can make a difference—even just having an externally imposed reading schedule can make a difference.  But most of my learning in the past couple of decades has been without a teacher and without an externally imposed course structure.

So my own experience is that teachers are not the secret sauce to developing expertise.  Good teaching helps, but good learning can take place even in the absence of teachers.

Mark wrote

Look back at that definition of “deliberate practice”—who’s going to pick the activities that most address your needs or provide the immediate feedback? The definition of deliberate practice almost assumes that there’s going to be teacher in the loop.

I think Mark is wrong here.  For example, when I was teaching myself electronics design, I picked the activities based on what I wanted to design.  The feedback came from building and testing the circuits—from the real world, not from the opinions of teachers. I found that some of the simplified models used in the text books and religiously repeated in intro courses were not very useful, while others were very handy and gave good results.  Having a teacher steering me would have probably resulted in less learning, because I would not have been as invested in the examples (so less willing to explore) and the examples would have been chosen to give the conventional results, rather than showing where the conventional models break down.

For example, my post Capacitance depends on DC bias in ceramic capacitors explains how I found out about how ceramic capacitors change their capacitance with DC bias.  The knowledge was out there in various industrial application notes, but it is not generally taught in beginning electronics courses—capacitors are treated as ideal devices.  A teacher would probably have led me to a circuit that did not have a large DC bias on the capacitors, so that they would have acted much like the ideal devices, and I would not have learned a very important (and often overlooked) flaw in the models.  I may be less expert in the conventional models than someone who spent the same amount of time studying electronics with a teacher, but I have picked up odd bits of learning that I would have missed with most teachers.

Similarly, my posts Diode-connected nFET characteristics, More mess in the FET modeling lab, and Mic modeling rethought showed my learning about the characteristics of nFET transistors, where I ended up with a different model from the textbook ones.  Teachers would have almost certainly directed me to learn the conventional model first, and then much more complicated models to patch the conventional model (that’s all I could find in any of the textbooks).  Not having a teacher let me find a useful simple model for the I-vs-V curve that models the entire curve fairly well, without having to switch between models.  (Incidentally, I never did come up with an explanation for the negative resistance in the first nFETs measured in the “more mess” post—that part has been discontinued and other nFETs I’ve measured don’t exhibit the phenomenon.)

Mark might argue that I had good teachers in the past, which allowed me to develop more expertise at self-teaching.  I won’t dispute that, but I think his main point “the definition of deliberate practice almost assumes that there’s going to be teacher in the loop” is refuted by self-teaching with real-world feedback.

2014 October 10

Reference list for women in science

Filed under: Uncategorized — gasstationwithoutpumps @ 21:45
Tags: , ,

Every year I spend part or all of one of the classes in my “how to be a grad student” course on talking about women in science—more specifically about women in computational fields.  For the last couple of years, I’ve been fortunate to have one of the more senior female grad students lead the discussion, but she plans to finish her thesis this year, so I’ve asked her to try to spread the expertise around so that someone else could take over next year.  She has put together a panel for the class consisting of herself, a female researcher in the field (and alumna of our program), a female faculty member from another department who has done published research into ways to increase female participation in computer science, and an advising staff member with yet another valuable view-point. All three of the other panel members are likely to be here for several years to come, and they could easily incorporate a grad student onto their panel, should some other grad student wish to step up in future.  So this seems like a good way to create an institutional continuity even as grad students come and go.

I am looking forward to how the panel works, since we’ve not had a panel before.  We also have 6 women and 7 men in the course, which is as close as we can come to gender parity with an odd number of students.  That should help with the discussions (though last year went ok, despite having an all-male incoming group of grad students).

Earlier this week I came across an excellent list of resources on women in tech fields on the Slow Searching blog.  I recognized a few of the articles as good ones and the rest look promising, though I’ve not had time to read them yet.  Even more recently on the same blog, there was a pointer to Project Implicit at Harvard, which lets people explore their unconscious biases.  I’ve not had time to follow up on Project Implicit either.  Perhaps if I get the grading done this weekend I’ll have a little time left to do some reading.

2014 October 5

Summer project

Filed under: Uncategorized — gasstationwithoutpumps @ 19:06
Tags: , , ,

I’m finally ready to reveal the project I’ve been working on all summer: a “kit” for making dimmable LED lamps.

The idea of the project is to have a flexible set of electronics modules that can be put together in various ways to get quite different lighting fixtures.  I ended up designing around a 9V power supply, and making two custom modules:

  • a dimmer board that reads a potentiometer and converts it (non-linearly) to a pulse-width-modulated 9V output signal.
  • LED boards that hook up to the two wires of the PWM input signal, and that can be run in parallel.

The key thing here is that the LED boards are designed to have roughly constant brightness despite variations in the LEDs or in the IR voltage drop of the wiring.  Each LED board has a constant current circuit and a little heatsink to keep the LEDs cool (they last longer that way, so I went overboard on the heatsink, keeping the LEDs well below their maximum temperature). The boards are designed to put out about 85 lumens of warm-white light at 130mA (dissipating about 1.17W on the board—with a 90% efficient 9V supply, the overall efficiency is about 65 lumens/W).

So far I’ve wired up two of the dimmer boards and tested them at currents of up to 4.8A—the transistors on the board don’t get hot (not even up to body temperature).  I don’t have a dummy load for testing at higher currents, but the board was designed to be able to handle at least 6A.  I paid extra to have the dimmer boards fabricated with 2oz copper (through ITEADstudio), both to reduce resistance on the board and to provide better heat sinking.  I want to be able to use the board in enclosed cases, and I don’t think that there is will be any trouble with that.

I’ve also tested 36 of the 100 LED boards I had made. Because the LEDs are surface-mount devices with big pads, I paid Elecrow to assemble the boards for me.  Their prices came out a little lower than Smart Prototyping for this particular board, but the difference in pricing schemes could make either one be cheaper for a given design. So far 34/36 work (~95%), which is a somewhat lower yield than I had expected for such a simple design with large-pitch components. I’ve not reworked the bad boards yet, but I did a little testing, and the problem seems to be a damaged transistor rather than an obvious soldering problem such as a short or open. I wonder if they were careless about their anti-static protocols, or whether the transistors were damaged before they installed them.

My original goal was to make an LED lighting fixture to replace the old ceiling fan in my breakfast room (using 10–20 of the LED boards, to get 850–1700 lumens), but I’ve not gotten that one done yet, because I got sidetracked into two other related projects:

  • Making a custom desk lamp for my son.
  • Making a prototype table lamp for my sister.

Originally, my son was going to design his own desk lamp to sit on a shelf above his desk, based on the desks we had seen in the dorms at orientation.  But when he moved into the dorm last weekend, he found that the desks in this dorm had no book shelf over the desk. But he really needs a desk lamp, because he lofted his bed over the desk to make more space, so the desk is quite dark.  I decided that I would make him a desk lamp as quickly as I could, designing it on the train home, and sharing sketches with him by e-mail when I got home.  This weekend I threw the project together as quickly as possible, so that I could ship it to him on Monday.

At the back of his desk is a 1″ thick wooden brace for the lofted bed, so I designed the lamp to hook over that brace, with the control box over the desk and LED lamps about 50cm above the desk on 10-gauge copper wire. The LEDs are light enough that the wire alone is enough to support them, though a thicker wire would be a little less wobbly.

Here is a side view of the desk lamp showing the hook for sliding over the bed rail.  I've only populated 4 of the 5 positions for LED boards.

Here is a side view of the desk lamp showing the hook for sliding over the bed rail. I’ve only populated 4 of the 5 positions for LED boards.

Front view of the desk lamp, as it would appear at the back of his desk.  The knob controls the dimmer, and a 9V wall wart provide power on the right side.

Front view of the desk lamp, as it would appear at the back of his desk. The knob controls the dimmer, and a 9V wall wart provide power on the right side.

Because I had to throw this thing together in a hurry, it has a very “homemade” look to it. The box is a cheap wooden craft box from the art supply store, the hook is a piece of masonite glued to a couple of  pieces of  scrap wood I had in the living room. I did not take the time to trim everything to perfect fit, nor to do more than cursory sanding.  I finished the box with Danish oil, but I only had clear oil, and one with a stain included would have looked better.

But the lamp works well. The vertical wires are attached to screws with knurled thumbnuts, and the LED boards to the wires the same way. These give the lamp a certain “steampunk” charm, though there should really be a big knurled brass knob instead of a plastic one to enhance that effect.

Next weekend I plan to try to finish a table lamp for my sister—it needs to look a bit nicer, since she is considering making a series of table lamps using stiffened-silk shades (she makes stiffened-silk bowls, and her customers have been telling her that she needs to make lamps).  I want her to see the artistic possibilities, and she isn’t into the rustic “homemade” look.  I’ll also have to provide her with instructions on how to put together the electronics for a lamp with artist-level instructions. I’ll have put the lamp together, but she’ll need to be able to figure out how to put the same electronics into a different base with different support for a shade. That means not just building the lamp, but explaining how it was built and why certain choices were made, so that she can do her own designs.

I’ll probably detail some of that build in a blog post here, so that I have a record as well as her.

2014 October 2

On senior theses

Filed under: Uncategorized — gasstationwithoutpumps @ 10:07
Tags: , ,
Today is the first day of classes for us, but I’ve already been busy advising both new and returning students. Last week I sent out an e-mail message to the bioengineering and bioinformatics undergrads explaining the senior capstone options. I’ll probably have to send out a similar message each fall, so I thought I would save it here, where I can find it again.  It also might be useful for students and faculty elsewhere, as a lot of the advice is generic for any student starting a research project, though some is specific to our program and even to this year.
A lot of bioengineering seniors are starting senior theses now, a few bioinformatics seniors are, and most juniors will be spending a fair amount of time this year looking for a lab or a senior project, so I thought I’d address a few of the common concerns.  (I’m copying the BME faculty on this message, so they can see what advice I’m giving students.)

Bioengineering, bioinformatics, MCD bio, and other departments all have different expectations or requirements for their capstone projects (which can include senior theses).  I can’t talk for any programs except bioinformatics and bioengineering.


The bioinformatics capstone is generally satisfied by the project-based grad courses that are required, but some students (20%?) also do a one-quarter or more research or development project as a senior thesis.  These theses, since they are for short projects and not an essential part of the capstone are generally fairly informal, and only 20–40 pages long.  Students planning to go on to grad school are often well advised to do research projects, and the senior thesis is one mechanism for doing that.

Because bioinformatics theses are informal and not very common, most of this message will be about bioengineering theses.  Bioinformatics students may want to look through this message for ideas about how to join labs and find projects to do, but the main audience is bioengineering students.

Bioengineering senior theses are longer and more formal than the bioinformatics ones.  The research projects consist of at least 3 quarters of BME 195 plus BME 123T in Winter quarter (so 17 units, rather than 5 units for a bioinformatics thesis).  Partly this is because wet-lab work is much slower than computer work—turnaround time for an experiment may be days or weeks, rather than minutes or hours.

thesis or group project?

Bioengineering students have the option of doing a group project for a capstone (BME 123A/B) or a senior thesis.  Those planning to go on to grad school should probably choose the thesis option, as it is better preparation for grad school.  Those planning to go into industry may be better off with the group project, though a senior thesis can also be good preparation for industry work.

If you have an idea for something you want to design and build, and can interest other students in working with you, forming a team project may be the best way to go, as faculty generally are more interested in getting help with their many research projects than with close supervision of a student-initiated project.  The BME 123AB and CMPE/EE 129ABC courses are a good umbrella for student-initiated group projects.
finding a lab and a project
No one is going to hand you an assignment and say “do this as a senior thesis!”—you have to find the project yourself.  But we don’t expect novice researchers to come up with great ideas alone (some students do come up with great ideas, of course), and so there is help in finding projects.  Generally students find projects by working with grad students, postdocs, faculty, and other researchers in a lab, and chipping off part of a bigger project that the lab is working on.  It is possible to come up with your own original project and convince a faculty member to supervise it, but that is more commonly done as group projects than individual theses, because most interesting projects are simply too big for one person to do in one year.

For the usual method to work, you need to be in a lab before you start your senior thesis.  Generally, that means finding a lab and working in it your junior year.  Bioengineering students work in labs all over campus—almost any department in the School of Engineering or the Physical and Biological Sciences could have a bioengineering project (and there are some in Social Sciences as well).

So first you need to find out what research on campus is happening and what interests you—that should start freshman year. One good way to find out what is happening in research is to attend research seminars—every department has one, generally weekly.  These are free public seminars, which you can attend without being a member of the department, signing up for a class, or anything else formal. Many of them are also listed as courses on the class schedule, so that rooms can be assigned and grad students can get credit for regular attendance (you can sign up too, if that will help you attend regularly, but make sure that you do attend regularly if you sign up—failing a no-work class for failure to show up sends a really strong message to faculty and future employers).  I particularly recommend BME 280B, the BME department seminar,  in fall quarter, since it is dedicated to showing new grad students the range of research projects available for their rotations. (Other quarters usually have different themes and other departments have different ways of organizing their seminar schedules.)

Don’t limit yourself to BME, though, as the department is too small to have enough undergrad lab positions for all the bioengineering students—bioengineering students have also worked with faculty from MCD bio, Microbiology and Environmental Toxicology, Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, and probably several other departments.  Some students have even taken summer research positions elsewhere and expanded those projects into year-long senior theses.

Once you have identified some research teams that look like they would be fun to join, do some homework: read the papers coming out of the group, look at their posters on the walls, talk to students who work in the lab. Once you have a fair idea what questions they are addressing and what techniques they are applying, send email to the head of the lab (often referred to as the “PI”, which is jargon for “Principal Investigator” on grant applications).  Don’t ask immediately for a senior thesis, but introduce yourself and ask if you can sit in on lab group meetings.

You may need to check out several labs simultaneously your junior year, which can take a fair amount of time in a year when you have a fairly heavy course load.

After you have been attending for a while, you might see a project that no one in the lab has time to do (there are always more ideas than time to follow up on them in a good research group).  If the lab group still seems interesting after several meetings, arrange a meeting with the PI to try to outline a possible project for you to work on.  Generally this will be a fairly small project that could grow into a senior thesis, as the PI will not want to commit the resources for a full-year project until you have proven that you are competent and reliable.

switching from finding a lab to senior thesis

Once you have  project identified and a faculty member willing to sponsor the project, you need to write up a 1–2-page proposal outlining the project and submit it to the undergrad director (that’s me).  I have not yet denied any senior thesis proposal, but the exercise of getting down in writing what you plan to do is a very important one, particularly for communicating with your PI about the scope of the project, so I’m not going to treat these as unimportant paperwork.

If the PI has not previously supervised a bioengineering senior thesis, I want to talk with them (at least by e-mail) so that they have a clear understanding of our expectations for a senior thesis (which may be quite different from the expectations in their own department—note the huge difference between a bioinformatics and a bioengineering senior thesis, even within the BME department).

The proposal should be submitted the quarter before the 3 quarters of BME 195, which generally means in the spring or summer for projects that run FWS.

We are planning to create a 2-unit “pre-capstone” course this spring to aid students in putting together group projects and senior thesis proposals.  The course is optional, but is likely to be very useful in crystallizing somewhat vague ideas into productive capstone projects and forming working groups.
what is a bioengineering senior thesis?

A bioengineering senior thesis is modeled after a PhD thesis.  It is obviously smaller (a one-year project, not a 3–7-year project), and a senior thesis does not have to be “novel work” in the sense that a PhD thesis does.  You can do an implementation of someone else’s idea for a senior thesis, but there should be substantial engineering or scientific thought on your part—you should not be merely “hands in the lab”.

A bioengineering thesis can be either a scientific one or an engineering one.  The details of what you do in the lab are similar—the difference is mainly in the goal.  A scientific thesis tries to answer a question about the real world: “what does this protein do? what is the evolutionary history of this virus?”, while an engineering thesis has a design goal “how can I move DNA slowly through a nanopore in 3M KCl? How can a get a halophilic microorganism to produce substantial quantities of butanol?”  You may end up using the same lab techniques for either sort of thesis, and you can often spin the same project as either a science or an engineering project (a lot of “science” is really engineering new lab methods, and a lot of “engineering” requires discovering new science).

Since the bioengineering major is an engineering major, I try to help students view their projects as engineering projects, especially when they are working with a PI who sees them as science projects, but there is no requirement that a bioengineering thesis must be one or the other—either is acceptable.
format of a thesis

You must write up what you do in the format of a thesis: start with a brief statement of the design goal or research question, give a detailed background on what other people have done in the past and why the problem you are tackling is important, then give a detailed description of all the design or experiments you do, including the ones that fail (and how you debugged the failures).    You do need to distinguish clearly what you do from what other people on the project do—a thesis should be written with “I” not “we” (which is different from multi-author journal papers), because the purpose of a thesis is to establish your individual research abilities.  Avoid using passive voice for the same reason—we want to know what you did, not just what was done.  When you use passive voice in a thesis, you are denying that you did it, but failing to tell us who did.

You should be writing a draft of your thesis every quarter of BME 195 and submitting it to the PI for feedback on both the content and the writing.  The first quarter should result in a draft that has a clear statement of the research question or engineering design goals, a thorough literature survey explaining what other people have done and why the question or goal you are tackling is interesting and important, and a research or development plan for how you will answer the question or achieve the design goals.  Each subsequent quarter will result in editing and rewriting big chunks of the thesis, and replacing the research plan with the research results.

The audience for your thesis is not your PI, nor even other members of your lab team.  It is other bioengineering students who might want to join the team—so you can assume that your audience has a basic knowledge of biology and engineering, but not of the specifics of your lab team’s approach.  You need to define jargon the first time you use it, and you need to give a brief intro to any techniques that you use that aren’t covered in the required courses for bioengineering students.

A thesis is not a lab notebook or a lab protocol handbook (though you may wish to give detailed protocols in an appendix to the thesis).  We are interested in the engineering thought, not how many microliters of this or that you mixed for how long—unless your engineering is optimizing the protocol, in which case we need to know why you increased or decreased pH, temperature, salinity, or whatever else you were manipulating to do your optimization.

A thesis is not a journal article.  Journal articles are very limited in space, so are carefully trimmed and edited to remove any dead ends or interesting side trips that don’t appear to contribute to the final result. A thesis should include discussion of the entire project, including the side trips and dead ends.  We want to see how you solved problems, not just the final solution, which is all the journal article usually has room for.

In BME 123T winter quarter (generally in the middle of the thesis research), we will go through several drafts of your thesis, with detailed feedback on the writing (and somewhat less on the content than the PIs are expected to give).  You should be starting Winter quarter with a complete first draft (some parts will still be plans rather than results, of course), and coming out of BME 123T with an almost complete final draft, so the spring quarter can be dedicated to finishing the research, with only a few new results to be written up.

presentation requirements

The new curriculum requires a senior portfolio containing at least two projects, one of which is your capstone project.  (The other project is generally a small one from one of your required courses.)  The portfolio also requires PDFs of three different presentation modes: a final paper, slides for an oral presentation, and a poster.  You need to make sure that you have examples of all three formats for your senior portfolio—if you are missing one at the beginning of your senior year, find a way to create it during the year.

Everyone should be producing a poster for their capstone for the undergraduate symposium in the spring (though posters produced for other venues can be included in the senior portfolio instead).  The senior thesis requires a final paper and the group projects generally require an oral presentation.  BME123T is expected to concentrate mainly on the written report format, but if students need poster or oral presentation opportunities, the course can be used for those as well.

The BME department has agreed to pay for undergrad posters printed at BELS for senior projects or for conferences for bioengineering and bioinformatics students, but NOT RUSH FEES.  If you miss the deadlines for normal charges, then the rush fees come out of your pocket (unless you can sweet-talk your PI into covering them).

2014 September 30

Ebola genome browser

Filed under: Uncategorized — gasstationwithoutpumps @ 21:00
Tags: , , , , ,

For the past week, I’ve been watching the genome browser team (led by Jim Kent) scramble to get together an information resource to aid in the fight against the Ebola virus.  They went public today:

We are excited to announce the release of a Genome Browser and information portal for the Jun. 2014 assembly of the Ebola virus (UCSC version eboVir3, GenBank accession KM034562) submitted by the Broad Institute. We have worked closely with the Pardis Sabeti lab at the Broad Institute and other Ebola experts throughout the world to incorporate annotations that will be useful to those studying Ebola. Annotation tracks included in this initial release include genes from NCBI, B- and T-cell epitopes from the IEDB, structural annotations from UniProt and a wealth of SNP data from the 2014 publication by the Sabeti lab. This initial release also contains a 160-way alignment comprising 158 Ebola virus sequences from various African outbreaks and 2 Marburg virus sequences. You can find links to the Ebola virus Genome Browser and more information on the Ebola virus itself on our Ebola Portal page.

Bulk downloads of the sequence and annotation data are available via the Genome Browser FTP server or the Downloads page. The Ebola virus (eboVir3) browser annotation tracks were generated by UCSC and collaborators worldwide. See the Credits page for a detailed list of the organizations and individuals who contributed to this release and the conditions for use of these data.

Matthew Speir
UCSC Genome Bioinformatics Group

« Previous PageNext Page »

The Rubric Theme. Create a free website or blog at


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 274 other followers

%d bloggers like this: