The job description: "This research position focuses on the science
of bacterial evolution. It will consist of researching theoretical
principles, but could include translational applications. Phylogenomic
and bioinformatic analysis of bacterial populations in nature or
in laboratory experiments will be a key component of the work. Prior
experience is an asset though training will be possible at PMI.
Likewise, laboratory microbiological, molecular, and biochemical
skills are an asset though not essential. Communication and critical
thinking skills are essential for performing the work and for
communicating to the local and international scientific communities.
Participating in team or independent grant writing to obtain research
funding will be required. Student mentoring is a part of the NAU
mission and is a partial expectation."

https://hr.peoplesoft.nau.edu/psp/ph92prta/EMPLOYEE/HRMS/c/HRS_HRAM.HRS_APP_SCHJOB.GBL?Page=HRS_APP_JBPST&Action=U&FOCUS=Applicant&SiteId=1&JobOpeningId=608024&PostingSeq=1

Northern Arizona University is located in Flagstaff, Arizona, a
beautiful mountain town with a surprisingly vibrant restaurant
scene. Located a little over an hour from the Grand Canyon and ~45
min from Sedona, Flagstaff is a hiker's paradise. In fact, the city
of Flagstaff operates more than 50 miles of unpaved trails and there
are, on average, 266 sunny days per year with which to enjoy them.
At 7000 ft in elevation, Flagstaff experiences all four seasons,
but thesummers are mild and, in the winter, you can be on the ski
slopes within 30 min! https://www.flagstaffarizona.org/

As mentioned, joint projects with Professor Sheppard at Oxford
University are possible, including travel to his laboratory in the
United Kingdom. https://www.biology.ox.ac.uk/people/samuel-sheppard

Contact Information:
Paul.Keim@nau.edu

Paul S. Keim, Ph.D.
Regents Professor, &
Cowden Endowed Chair of Microbiology
Northern Arizona University
Flagstaff, AZ 86011-4073

Paul S Keim

The bones sat quietly in a fossil collection for years. One was part of a femur; the other, a tibia. They looked like the remains of an unusually large ancient human. But who did they belong to?

The answer came from an unexpected source: ancient proteins.

Using palaeoproteomic analysis, researchers found a molecular signature in both bones that matches the Denisovan lineage. The discovery identifies the two Penghu fossils as Denisovan and, more importantly, gives scientists their first substantial glimpse of the Denisovans' body size.

And the picture is striking.

One individual is estimated to have been about 1.8 metres tall and weighed around 83 kilograms. The other may have reached 1.9 metres and about 91 kilograms. Their leg bones rank among the largest known from Pleistocene Homo.

These were not small or fragile people.

They were powerful, heavily built humans moving through Ice Age eastern Asia.

But the bones tell an even more intriguing story. The femur has a pronounced ridge called a femoral pilaster—a feature particularly associated with modern human hunter-gatherers and increased mechanical strength during terrestrial movement. Why would a Denisovan, with an otherwise strongly archaic skeleton, possess this modern-looking feature?

Perhaps these Denisovans travelled extensively across the landscape. Perhaps their bodies were shaped by a demanding hunting lifestyle. Or perhaps, the researchers suggest, genetic exchange with early modern humans contributed to some of these features.

Their extraordinary size raises another mystery. A common expectation in human evolution is that populations living closer to the tropics tend to be smaller. Yet these Denisovans lived around 23°N latitude and were exceptionally large. The researchers argue that cold climate alone cannot explain their size, pointing instead toward lifestyle and diet—including evidence that at least one Penghu individual relied heavily on meat.

So, piece by piece, the Denisovans are becoming less mysterious.

What was once a shadowy population known mainly from DNA is beginning to take physical form: large, robust, mobile humans who lived across eastern Asia and whose bodies carried a fascinating mixture of ancient and modern traits.

And perhaps the most remarkable part of this story is where it began—not in a spectacular cave discovery, but with two weathered bones lying among thousands of fossils.

The Denisovans may have left no written history. But their bones are beginning to tell one.

*Note: This research is currently a bioRxiv preprint and has not yet undergone peer review.  Detail at https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.08.07.743438v1.full.pdf

More at https://sites.temple.edu/liberles/

Mulan (http://mulan.dcode.org/), a novel method and a network server for comparing multiple draft and finished-quality sequences to identify functional elements conserved over evolutionary time. Mulan brings together several novel algorithms: the TBA multi-aligner program for rapid identification of local sequence conservation, and the multiTF program for detecting evolutionarily conserved transcription factor binding sites in multiple alignments. In addition, Mulan supports two-way communication with the GALA database; alignments of multiple species dynamically generated in GALA can be viewed in Mulan, and conserved transcription factor binding sites identified with Mulan/multiTF can be integrated and overlaid with extensive genome annotation data using GALA.

Address of the bookmark: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC540288/

Address of the bookmark: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6198262/

In this post, we’ll explore the core methods used in comparative genomics, the questions they help answer, and how they’re shaping our understanding of life.

1. Whole-Genome Alignment
Whole-genome alignment involves mapping the entire genome of one species to another. Tools like MUMmer, MAUVE, and LASTZ perform large-scale sequence alignments to detect conserved regions, rearrangements, insertions, and deletions.

Use Case:
Comparing human and chimpanzee genomes to identify evolutionary conserved sequences (ECS) and regions of divergence.

Key Challenges:
Handling repetitive sequences and genome rearrangements.

Computational complexity in large genomes.

2. Synteny and Collinearity Analysis
Synteny refers to conserved blocks of gene order across species. Tools like MCScanX, SynMap, or CHITRA (for visualizing synteny interactively) detect these blocks to understand chromosomal evolution.

Use Case:
Studying ancient genome duplications in plants.

Investigating chromosomal rearrangements in cancer genomes.

3. Ortholog and Paralog Detection
Orthologs are genes in different species that evolved from a common ancestor, while paralogs are genes duplicated within a genome. Identifying them is crucial for functional annotation and evolutionary studies.

Popular Tools:
OrthoFinder, Orthologous MAtrix (OMA), InParanoid, and EggNOG.

Use Case:
Functional prediction of uncharacterized genes based on orthologs in model organisms.

Tracing gene family evolution.

4. Phylogenomic Analysis
Phylogenomic methods combine phylogenetics and genomics to infer evolutionary trees based on genome-wide data. These methods can handle dozens to hundreds of genomes, using concatenated alignments or gene trees.

Tools:
RAxML, IQ-TREE, ASTRAL, Phylip, BEAST.

Use Case:
Resolving the evolutionary relationships between microbial species.

Studying speciation events.

5. Pan-Genome Analysis
The pan-genome consists of the core genome (shared by all strains) and the accessory genome (strain-specific genes). This is especially popular in microbial genomics.

Tools:
Roary, Panaroo, BPGA, PGAP.

Use Case:
Understanding virulence factor diversity in E. coli.

Designing broad-spectrum vaccines.

6. Comparative Transcriptomics
Comparing transcriptomes across species or conditions reveals conserved and unique expression patterns. RNA-seq data can be mapped to reference genomes to identify orthologous expression profiles.

Use Case:
Comparing stress response in extremophiles and model species.

Studying conserved regulatory networks.

7. Functional Element Comparison
Beyond genes, comparative genomics also targets non-coding regions—enhancers, promoters, miRNAs. Conservation across species often implies functional importance.

Tools:
PhastCons, GERP, phyloP (based on multiple alignments).

Use Case:
Detecting conserved non-coding elements in vertebrates.

Studying regulatory divergence in human evolution.

8. Horizontal Gene Transfer (HGT) Detection
In microbes, genes often jump across species boundaries. Comparative genomics can detect HGT by identifying genes that defy the expected phylogenetic pattern.

Tools:
HGTector, DarkHorse, AlienHunter, SIGI-HMM.

Use Case:
Tracing antibiotic resistance genes.

Exploring microbial adaptability in extreme environments.

Final Thoughts
Comparative genomics is a powerful lens to observe the diversity and unity of life. With a broad toolkit—from aligners to orthology pipelines, phylogenetic engines to visualization tools—it allows scientists to ask big questions: How did genomes evolve? What makes species unique? Where do new genes come from?

Whether you're studying extremophiles, building better crops, or exploring human ancestry, comparative genomics offers the methods to connect the dots across the tree of life.

The project is on bacterial gene gain and loss and emerging pathogenicity, and is described in full here: https://www.ebi.ac.uk/research/postdocs/ebpods/projects/goldman-welch-2015 . The EMBL-EBI / Cambridge Computational Biomedical Postdoctoral (“EBPOD”)

The closing date for applications is 3 September 2015. Nick Goldman EMBL-European Bioinformatics Institute Nick Goldman

More at https://www.ebi.ac.uk/research/postdocs/ebpods/projects/goldman-welch-2015

The fate of a cell is ultimately the product of the regulation of its genes. Gene regulation is a coordinated process acting at multiple levels of which transcription and translation are the most prominent. The Valen group is dedicated to the fundamental question of how transcription and translation is integrated to obtain the desired protein abundance. The recent development of high-throughput next generation sequencing techniques to monitor both active translation and transcription has made it possible to study this connection at the genome scale.

This project aims to elucidate the links between regulation of translation and transcription. The applicant will analyze next generation sequencing data and model gene regulation on a genome-wide level to identify the features that affect the translational output of transcripts. The work will be done in close collaboration with experimental scientists who will test the predictions of the computational models.

Additional information on the position can be obtained by contacting Eivind Valen (eivind.valen@ii.uib.no).

The research fellow must take part in the University’s approved PhD program leading to the degree within a time limit of 3 years. Application for admission to the PhD program, including a project plan outline for the training module, will be worked out in collaboration with the research group in question.

In total, the fellowship period is 4 years, 25 % of this will be allocated to teaching and/or administrative duties. The fellowship period may be reduced if the successful applicant has held previous employment as a research fellow or similar.

http://www.jobbnorge.no/en/available-jobs/job/102235/research-fellow-phd-candidate-in-computational-biology-2-positions

Dr Altan Kara is a Bioinformatics specialist at the faculty of Gene Engineering and Biotechnology Institute at TUBITAK MAM Research Center. His research interest revolves around the cancer informatics and computational aided-drug design. I applaud Dr Altan for clearly setting out both his expectations of people that join his lab/university in addition to listing his responsibilities to his research members at TUBITAK MAM Research Institüte. Hopefully, this interview will prove useful to others in the field, especially to those who are just starting their bioinformatics careers.

You can find out more about Dr Altan by visiting his (well documented) lab page (http://gmbe.mam.tubitak.gov.tr/en) and BOL page http://bioinformaticsonline.com/profile/altan . And now, on to the BOL:“Tryst with a Bioinformatician” interview series ...

• What push you to join Computational Biology/Bioinformatics?

According to me, bioinformatics is the center of modern biological research and if a researcher wants to discover new biological insights by evaluating the globally produced biological data to derivate unified solutions for specific biological problems, learning bioinformatics is the only way to achieve this goal.

• What fascinates you about Computational Biology/Bioinformatics?

It's flexibility. As well known, there are highly diverse and complex biological questions are waiting to be enlightened and it's impossible to bring solutions to this diversity by using similar approaches. Thus, the employed method has to be unique for the targeted biological problem and by using bioinformatics tools this can be easily achieved. 

• What is the one word you would use to describe yourself?

Bioinformatician. :)

• Can you please describe your research work in a nutshell for BOL users.

At my current Institute, I am working in the field of cancer bioinformatics. Briefly, the overall aim of the project which I am working for (AKMARK (Project CODE:5153403)) is, applying a bioinformatics-supported genome, transcriptome, proteome, and metabolome analysis to reveal the molecular profile of the disease through an integrated approach, and to develop an early diagnosis and scanning kit based on this profile. Alterations in the gene, transcript, protein, and metabolite profiles between normal tissue, normal tissue adjoined to the tumor (reactive stroma), tumor tissue, lymph node metastasis, and blood samples taken from the same patient and the reflection of these changes in some other selected body fluids will be revealed within the scope of the project. The molecular structures involved in the development and progression of NSCLC will be determined and relations with the clinical, tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) staging and histology will be made. The development of a diagnostic kit for immediate clinical purposes and an electrochemical biosensor for quick on-site applications are targeted through the development of a number of antibody and aptamer formed against the most specific biomarker selected from the panel.

• Is there anything else we should know about you and your research?

Besides AKMARK, I am also in preparation of having a side project that aims for the development of a computational method to design inhibitors for prokaryotic two-component systems. In this project, I will be in collaboration with Prof. Maria Kontoyianni, SIUE: Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, School of Pharmacy.

• What was your greatest scientific disappointment in life till now?

So far I do not experience any memorable scientific disappointment in my life. :)

• What major research challenges and problems did you face yet? How did you handle them?

The major challenge which I faced so far in my scientific career was predicting the interaction between the prokaryotic two-component proteins. To be able to accurately predict the interactions between these proteins, I create a meta-predictor by using a support vector machine. By using this technique I integrated six different protein-protein interaction methods in a way to cover disadvantage of one method with the advantage of another one. The meta-predictor which I developed during this work is accessible via http://metapred2cs.ibers.aber.ac.uk/ and for more detailed information about the system the articles with the PMID IDs; PMID: 27378293 and PMID: 26384938 can be read.

• What's your all-time favourite bioinformatics package, and why?

For me, the best bioinformatics package is R/Bioconductor. The reason why I like this package is, it provides lots of useful tools for comprehensive analysis and comparison of high-throughput experimental data in an integrated manner and besides lots of the packages it provides, it is open source and also open for development. As a result, it provides strong and flexible ways to do science.

• In bioinformatics, do you see yourself in which of the following roles-scientist, analyst, developer, engineer or pure academician?

Scientist / Developer.

• What will you like to accomplish in next five years / ten years?

For my current research, I would like to design a pipeline to automatically integrate and analyse omics data for cancer research which will be specifically aiming for biomarker and novel drug target discovery. In addition to this, I also like to develop another pipeline for prokaryotic TCS protein structure prediction and inhibitor design.

• When you will be retired, what would you tell next generation bioinformaticians?

Bioinformatics is not all about scripting and researchers who study in this field should never expect a tool to do their analyses for them. Besides computational skills, a bioinformatician must have a strong biological background in his/her research area which will allow them to understand if anything went wrong during their run by only looking at the results instead of just blindly trusting the output of the bioinformatics tools.

• What you always miss in bioinformatics when you will no longer working in this field?

Bioinformatics is open to doing multi-discipliner research with scientists all around the world. As a result, while I studying in this field I can interactively learn a lot from wide range research community. I think this is the one thing which I will miss the most.

• If there will be bioinformatics company owned by you in future, What are your company focus and aim?

With the increasing amount of data in databases, there is already a massive need for effective methods to eliminate the manipulated data and reach to clean/useful information. As days pass, the requirement of data mining will be the first step of any research project. For this reason, the major goal of my bioinformatics company will be developing effective tools to eliminate manipulated datasets and information that exist in the literature and provide trustworthy clean information/datasets for researchers.

• How much bioinformatics change in 2050, according to your wild imagination?

Bioinformatics is a field that constantly and dynamically changes. As the bioinformatics progress, new tools and methods become available and they provide a better application of existing methods or totally new methods that offer an alternative solution to various biological problems. A long with these updates, developers also provide easy to use GUIs for most of the tools. Considering this, if the field carries on developing like this, every single researcher with a strong biological background can be able to perform bioinformatics analyses by him/herself without needing a professional help. As a result, almost all of the bioinformaticians will be responsible just for development of new methods/tools.

• What would one piece of advice you give someone who's trying to reinvent themselves and enter into bioinformatics sector?

Bioinformatics is a wide field with a lot of career options. Thus, if a researcher likes to step into this field first he/she should be clear about the branch of the bioinformatics they like to study in. Following to this decision they should first learn at least one programing language and investigate the ways of how other researcher employed that language in their researches and WHY? A researcher, in this field, should never create and use copy paste scripts but always must understand WHY the other researcher worked in that way. Knowing the answer of this question is the only way to learn bioinformatics. Besides, a researcher in the field of bioinformatics (from any branch) must always be good about the environmental control. In other words, one should always easily control input output directories, modify files or directories, annotate and modify employed scripts during the research and should not allow any confusion during the different stages of the research. Finally, they should not blindly trust the output of a tool/software but do a benchmarking test for each of the tools which they decided to utilise in their research. In addition to this, even if the tools pass the benchmarking, researchers should have a good biological background in their field to tell if anything when wrong during the process by only looking the output(s) of the employed pipelines/packages/tools.