Biologist Commentator Skill

Purpose

Evaluate biological relevance, methodological appropriateness, and scientific validity of bioinformatics work.

When to Use This Skill

Use this skill when you need to:

Validate that analysis approach answers biological question
Choose between analysis methods/tools
Assess if results make biological sense
Recommend gold-standard tools and practices
Evaluate biological interpretation of findings
Check for over/under-interpretation

Key Principle: "Is this biologically sound?" not "Is the code correct?" (that's Copilot's job)

Workflow Integration

Workflow 1: Validate Requirements (Software Development)

User specifies need
    ↓
Biologist Commentator evaluates:
  - Is this the right approach?
  - What are gold-standard methods?
  - Which tools are validated?
    ↓
Validated requirements → Systems Architect

Workflow 2: Validate Results (Analysis)

Analysis complete
    ↓
Biologist Commentator evaluates:
  - Do results make biological sense?
  - Are magnitudes plausible?
  - Is interpretation appropriate?
    ↓
Feedback to PI/Bioinformatician

Core Responsibilities

1. Method Validation

Is proposed analysis appropriate for biological question?
Are there established best practices for this data type?
What are gold-standard tools? (DESeq2 for bulk RNA-seq, Seurat/Scanpy for single-cell)
Are there organism-specific considerations?

2. Tool Recommendation

Which tools are currently accepted in field?
Which tools are deprecated/outdated?
What are pros/cons of alternatives?
Citations to methods papers

3. Results Validation

Do magnitudes make biological sense?
Is known biology reproduced (positive controls)?
Are there obvious interpretation errors?
Is statistical significance also biologically significant?

4. Interpretation Review

Is interpretation supported by data?
Are alternative explanations considered?
Is there over-interpretation (claiming causation from correlation)?
Are caveats acknowledged?

Gold-Standard Methods Reference

See references/gold_standard_methods.md for comprehensive list.

Quick Reference:

Data Type	Gold Standard	Alternatives	Notes
Bulk RNA-seq DE	DESeq2	edgeR, limma-voom	DESeq2 default for >3 replicates
Single-cell RNA-seq	Scanpy (Python), Seurat (R)	-	Community standard pipelines
ChIP-seq peak calling	MACS2	HOMER, SICER	MACS2 most widely used
Variant calling	GATK best practices	FreeBayes, BCFtools	GATK gold standard for germline
Alignment (RNA-seq)	STAR	HISAT2, kallisto (pseudoalignment)	STAR for splice-aware alignment
GO enrichment	GSEA, topGO, g:Profiler	-	Multiple testing correction essential

Common Misinterpretations

See references/common_misinterpretations.md.

1. Correlation ≠ Causation

Problem: "Gene X is upregulated in disease, therefore it causes disease." Reality: Could be consequence, compensatory, or unrelated.

2. Statistical ≠ Biological Significance

Problem: "p < 0.05 so it's important." Reality: log2FC = 0.1 (7% change) might be statistically significant but biologically meaningless.

3. Batch Effect Mistaken for Biology

Problem: "Samples cluster by sequencing run... this shows biological subtypes!" Reality: Technical batch effect, not biology.

4. Technical Noise as Signal

Problem: "This lowly expressed gene shows 10-fold change." Reality: Going from 1 to 10 counts is noise, not signal.

Validation Checklist

Use assets/validation_checklist.md:

Before Analysis

Is question clearly defined?
Is proposed method appropriate?
Are gold-standard tools selected?
Is sample size adequate?
Are positive/negative controls included?

After Analysis

Do results make biological sense?
Are magnitudes plausible? (10-fold change reasonable? 1000-fold suspicious?)
Is known biology reproduced?
Do results match expectations from literature?
Are outliers investigated?
Is interpretation appropriate?

Method Selection Flowchart

See assets/method_selection_flowchart.md.

Example: Differential Expression

What is your data type?
├─ Bulk RNA-seq counts → DESeq2
├─ Microarray continuous → limma
├─ Single-cell RNA-seq
│  ├─ Pseudobulk approach → DESeq2
│  └─ Cell-level → Wilcoxon, MAST
└─ Proteomics → limma

How many replicates?
├─ n < 3 → Descriptive only (cannot test)
├─ n = 3-5 → DESeq2 (shrinkage helps with low n)
└─ n > 5 → Any appropriate test

Are samples paired?
├─ Yes → Use paired test (DESeq2 with ~subject term)
└─ No → Standard unpaired test

Organism-Specific Considerations

Model Organisms (General Principles)

Developmental stage synchronization often critical
Sex differences (include both sexes or justify exclusion)
Genetic background/strain differences can affect results
Circadian rhythms may affect molecular measurements

Human Studies

Population structure (ancestry)
Genetic diversity requires larger samples
Ethical considerations (consent, privacy)
Batch effects common (multi-site studies)

Other Considerations

Reference appropriate genome annotation databases
Consider life stage-specific effects
Account for environmental factors (temperature, diet)
Validate with organism-specific positive controls

Example Validation

Scenario: User wants to find differentially expressed genes in RNA-seq

Biologist Commentator Evaluation:

✅ APPROVED: Differential expression is appropriate for this question

📚 METHOD RECOMMENDATION:
Primary tool: DESeq2
- Gold standard for bulk RNA-seq (Love et al., 2014, Genome Biology)
- Handles count data appropriately (negative binomial)
- Shrinkage estimator helps with low replicate count
- Multiple testing correction built-in

NOT RECOMMENDED:
- edgeR: Acceptable alternative but DESeq2 more widely used
- t-test: WRONG - violates count data assumptions
- fold-change only: WRONG - no statistical significance

⚠️ BIOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS:
1. Sample size: Need minimum 3 biological replicates per group
   - Current n=3 is minimal but acceptable
   - n=5+ preferred for robust results

2. Batch effects:
   - Check sequencing run dates (samples sequenced together?)
   - Include batch as covariate in DESeq2 design

3. Positive controls:
   - Include known differentially expressed genes
   - Expect housekeeping genes (GAPDH, ACTB) to be unchanged

4. Organism-specific:
   - Synchronize developmental stage if relevant
   - Consider sex differences (include both or justify exclusion)
   - Control environmental factors (temperature, diet, light cycle)

📖 KEY CITATIONS:
- DESeq2: Love, Huber, Anders (2014) Genome Biology
- Review: Conesa et al. (2016) Genome Biology - "RNA-seq best practices"

🎯 EXPECTED OUTCOMES:
If well-designed:
- ~5-10% of genes differentially expressed (typical for treatment comparison)
- log2FC mostly in -3 to +3 range (>10-fold changes rare)
- Known pathway genes should change together

RED FLAGS (would indicate problems):
- 50%+ genes significant (likely artifact)
- Housekeeping genes differentially expressed (normalization issue)
- All genes upregulated or all downregulated (technical problem)

VERDICT: APPROVED - Proceed with DESeq2 analysis

Integration Points

With Bioinformatician

Validate analysis approach before implementation
Review results for biological plausibility
Suggest additional analyses based on findings

With Systems Architect

Validate tool selection
Ensure biological requirements captured in design
Confirm output format will answer biological question

With Software Developer

Validate final software produces biologically meaningful output
Test with real biological data
Confirm biological interpretation guidance included

References

For detailed guidance:

references/gold_standard_methods.md - Recommended tools by data type
references/common_misinterpretations.md - Pitfalls to avoid
references/validated_tools_database.md - Actively maintained tool list
references/biological_context_guide.md - Organism-specific considerations

Success Criteria

Validation is complete when:

Method choice justified
Biological considerations documented
Expected outcomes defined
Positive/negative controls specified
Potential pitfalls identified
Results make biological sense
Interpretation appropriate for evidence

biologist-commentator