This is part-tip, part-adventures in code. I found out recently that it is possible to comment out multiple lines of code in Igor and thought I’d put this tip up here.

This is a quick post about the punch card feature on GitHub. This is available from Graphs within each repo and is also directly accessible via the API. I was looking at the punch card for two of my projects: one is work related and the other, more of a kind of hobby. The punch cards were different (the work one had way more commits, 99, than the hobby, 22). There was an interesting pattern to them. Here they are overlaid.

A couple of recent projects have meant that I had to get to grips more seriously with R and with MATLAB . Regular readers will know that I am a die-hard IgorPro user. Trying to tackle a new IDE is a frustrating experience, as anyone who has tried to speak a foreign language will know. The speed with which you can do stuff (or get your point across) is very slow.

I’m currently writing two manuscripts that each have a substantial data modelling component. Some of our previous papers have included computer code, but it was straightforward enough to have the code as a supplementary file or in a GitHub repo and leave it at that. Now with more substantial computation in the manuscript, I was wondering how best to describe it. How much detail is required?

This post follows on from “Getting Started“. In the lab we use IgorPRO for pretty much everything. We have many analysis routines that run in Igor, we have scripts for processing microscope metadata etc, and we use it for generating all figures for our papers. Even so, people in the lab engage with it to varying extents. The main battle is that the use of Excel is pretty ubiquitous.

Something that has driven me nuts for a while is the bug in FIJI/ImageJ when making montages of image stacks. This post is about a solution to this problem. What’s a montage? You have a stack of images and you want to array them in m rows by n columns. This is useful for showing a gallery of each frame in a movie or to separate the channels in a multichannel image.

More on the theme of “The Digital Cell“: using quantitative, computational approaches in cell biology. So you want to get started? Well, the short version of this post is: Find something that you need to automate and get going! Programming http://www.instruction-manuals.co.uk/imageIM/four/seven/bbc.gif I make no claim to be a computer wizard.

The future of cell biology, even for small labs, is quantitative and computational. What does this mean and what should it look like? My group is not there yet, but in this post I’ll describe where we are heading. The graphic below shows my current view of the ideal workflow for my lab. The graphic is pretty self-explanatory, but to walk you through: A lab member sets up a microscopy experiment.

If you are a cell biologist, you will have noticed the change in emphasis in our field. At one time, cell biology papers were – in the main – qualitative . Micrographs of “representative cells”, western blots of a “typical experiment”… This descriptive style gave way to more quantitative approaches, converting observations into numbers that could be objectively assessed.

I needed to generate a uniform random distribution of points inside a circle and, later, a sphere. This is part of a bigger project, but the code to do this is kind of interesting. There were no solutions available for IgorPro, but stackexchange had plenty of examples in python and mathematica. There are many ways to do this.