5.9 years ago by
Your question is very much in the spirit of the times, e.g. from Peter Cock's IMSB twitter feed:
Do you want to #usegalaxy too? RT
@passDan Getting the feeling that
Galaxy is the cool kid and everyone
wants to be his friend. #bosc2011
Farhat's legitimate space considerations (which are also true to some extent for non-Galaxy based workflows), I would say that the answer to your query is a definitive "yes", Galaxy is a very serious contender for remote and local NGS analyses. I would even venture to say that the is was the implementation of NGS tools and Cloud images by Galaxy in 2010 that has led to the explosive growth in users of Galaxy over the last 12 months, as evidenced by posts to the Galaxy users mailing list:
I know a half or dozen wet-lab biologists who use Galaxy to do their own NGS analyses because: 1) they don't have to install code, grok UNIX or program; 2) they get free storage and compute; and 3) they can share their results with supervisors/collaborators, etc.
There is also a big push from bioinformaticians to use Galaxy. You can get a reals sense for this on the galaxy developers mailing list. We are currently rolling out a local Galaxy installing in our bioinformatics core facilty so we can provide NGS results to users via an interface they understand. The aim is to use Galaxy to cut-down on the time required to help explain results/protocols and allow users to perform their own follow-up analyses. We are just trialling this now and though local version on a desktop are easy to get going and customize for NGS work, we have not launched a production instance so I can't report on this yet.
Lastly, there is going to be really productive interaction in the future between Galaxy and Taverna, the two major players in the bioinformatics workflows market. I predict a synergistic co-evolution between Galaxy and Taverna, similar to what was observed between the UCSC and Ensembl Browsers, that will generate a lot of new functionality specifically in the area of NGS.