↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of Acceleration Techniques for Selected Low-Level Bioinformatics Operations

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Genetics, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparison of Acceleration Techniques for Selected Low-Level Bioinformatics Operations
Published in
Frontiers in Genetics, February 2016
DOI 10.3389/fgene.2016.00005
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel Langenkämper, Tobias Jakobi, Dustin Feld, Lukas Jelonek, Alexander Goesmann, Tim W. Nattkemper

Abstract

Within the recent years clock rates of modern processors stagnated while the demand for computing power continued to grow. This applied particularly for the fields of life sciences and bioinformatics, where new technologies keep on creating rapidly growing piles of raw data with increasing speed. The number of cores per processor increased in an attempt to compensate for slight increments of clock rates. This technological shift demands changes in software development, especially in the field of high performance computing where parallelization techniques are gaining in importance due to the pressing issue of large sized datasets generated by e.g., modern genomics. This paper presents an overview of state-of-the-art manual and automatic acceleration techniques and lists some applications employing these in different areas of sequence informatics. Furthermore, we provide examples for automatic acceleration of two use cases to show typical problems and gains of transforming a serial application to a parallel one. The paper should aid the reader in deciding for a certain techniques for the problem at hand. We compare four different state-of-the-art automatic acceleration approaches (OpenMP, PluTo-SICA, PPCG, and OpenACC). Their performance as well as their applicability for selected use cases is discussed. While optimizations targeting the CPU worked better in the complex k-mer use case, optimizers for Graphics Processing Units (GPUs) performed better in the matrix multiplication example. But performance is only superior at a certain problem size due to data migration overhead. We show that automatic code parallelization is feasible with current compiler software and yields significant increases in execution speed. Automatic optimizers for CPU are mature and usually no additional manual adjustment is required. In contrast, some automatic parallelizers targeting GPUs still lack maturity and are limited to simple statements and structures.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Argentina 1 5%
Unknown 20 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 29%
Researcher 4 19%
Student > Master 2 10%
Professor 2 10%
Lecturer 1 5%
Other 4 19%
Unknown 2 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 29%
Computer Science 5 24%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 14%
Engineering 2 10%
Sports and Recreations 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 3 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 March 2016.
All research outputs
#15,721,538
of 24,162,141 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Genetics
#4,750
of 12,982 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#229,479
of 408,848 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Genetics
#32
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,162,141 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,982 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 408,848 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.