We accomplish this by first calculating genotype likelihoods for every site. For a given site in a diploid genome, there are 10 possible genotypes (AA, AC, AG, AT, CC, CG, CT, GG, GT, TT). Referee takes as input the genotype likelihoods calculated for all 10 genotypes given the called reference base at each position.

Referee is a program to calculate a quality score for every position in a genome assembly. This allows for easy filtering of low quality sites for any downstream analysis.

https://github.com/gwct/referee

Address of the bookmark: https://gwct.github.io/referee/#

A recent study published in Genome Biology (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13059-026-04280-y) addressed this challenge by introducing dicast (https://github.com/burgshrimps/dicast), a machine-learning approach for detecting structural variants in short-read sequencing data. Structural variants, such as large deletions, insertions, duplications, and inversions, can have significant biological and clinical implications, yet they are challenging to identify with short-read technologies. Because different detection methods frequently yield divergent results, researchers commonly employ consensus calling, considering a variant valid only if multiple tools detect it. While this approach reduces false positives, it relies on the potentially flawed assumption that the majority is always correct.

The researchers explored the impact of evaluating the supporting evidence for each variant, rather than simply tallying the number of algorithms that identified it. To establish a ground truth, they analyzed nine genomes using multiple sequencing technologies and 15 detection methods, initially identifying approximately 35 million potential variants. Through extensive filtering, evidence integration, and manual review of over 11,500 variants, they developed a robust benchmark comprising more than 236,000 structural variants. The findings underscored the complexity of the problem: short-read methods detected fewer than half of deletions and less than 10 percent of insertions, with performance declining markedly in repetitive genomic regions. In contrast, long-read technologies demonstrated superior detection capabilities. However, replacing the substantial volume of existing short-read data in clinical and research settings is not immediately feasible. Consequently, the researchers questioned whether short-read data might harbor more information than conventional analytical pipelines currently extract.

This line of inquiry led to the development of dicast. Rather than merely confirming agreement among multiple tools, dicast identifies patterns in sequencing data, including split and clipped reads, discordant read pairs, alignment characteristics, and the surrounding genomic context. An XGBoost machine-learning model evaluates which combinations of these signals are indicative of genuine structural variants. Thus, the approach shifts from tallying algorithmic consensus to interpreting the underlying evidence.

The researchers subsequently conducted a targeted evaluation by examining structural variants detected by only a single short-read tool, which are typically missed by consensus-based approaches. dicast successfully recovered approximately 81% of these single-caller deletions, insertions, and duplications. The signals for these variants were present in the data, but conventional filtering methods failed to integrate them effectively.

The utility of dicast was further demonstrated in cohorts with rare diseases, including congenital limb malformations, atrial fibrillation, and neuromuscular disorders. In one instance, dicast achieved a deletion recall rate of approximately 0.96, compared to 0.74 using consensus calling. The median number of variants requiring manual review was 29 per sample. Among 31 experimentally validated variants that standard filters would have missed, dicast identified 12, whereas consensus calling detected only one.

Overall, dicast identified approximately 20 percent more potential disease-causing deletions than consensus-based methods. While a 20 percent increase may appear modest, in clinical genomics such improvements can have significant practical implications. Missing a deletion may leave a case unresolved, whereas detecting a structural variant can provide critical diagnostic insights.

The study does not claim that machine learning has rendered short-read sequencing superior to long-read approaches. Instead, the results underscore the effectiveness of long-read sequencing for structural variant detection. However, dicast highlights a more nuanced perspective: substantial biological information may still be recoverable from the extensive short-read datasets already available.

The principal lesson extends beyond the detection of structural variants. For many years, bioinformatics pipelines have relied on threshold-based criteria, such as minimum coverage, quality scores, or support from multiple tools. While these rules are useful, biological phenomena do not always conform to rigid checklists; multiple weak signals, when considered collectively, can provide compelling evidence.

This perspective prompts consideration of the solitary variant: one algorithm identifies it, while several others do not. Traditional consensus techniques might have dismissed it, yet machine learning approaches evaluate the available evidence to determine whether the variant is plausible.

Occasionally, the most significant variant within a genome is the one that is almost universally overlooked.

Read more at https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13059-026-04280-y

Krona

https://sourceforge.net/p/krona/home/krona/

Address of the bookmark: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4053813/

To use CLgenomics, individual genome data (genome sequences + annotation details) are compiled and saved in a specially formatted file called CLG (ChunLab Genomics). Each CLG file corresponds with one bacterial genome. If multiple genomes are being considered and compared, multiple CLG files are needed. ChunLab offers >40,000 CLG files of publicly available Bacterial and Archaeal genomes.

Address of the bookmark: https://chunlab.wordpress.com/clgenomics-software/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/research/groups/koonin/

The impact of non tree-like evolution such as horizontal gene transfers and hybridization on species biology
Evolution and adaptation of animals in the absence of sexual reproduction and the underlying mechanisms
Genomic signatures of adaptation to a parasitic life-style

More at https://edanchin.org/

Instead of asking only whether two genes occur together across genomes, CORGIAS asks a deeper question: did these genes actually evolve together, repeatedly gaining or losing their presence in concert, or are they merely travelling together because of their inherited history? The framework introduces two complementary approaches, Ancestral State Adjustment (ASA) and the Simultaneous EVolution test (SEV), which incorporate evolutionary information into the search for gene associations. This distinction becomes increasingly important as genome sequencing continues to uncover enormous numbers of microbial genomes, many from organisms that have never been cultured and whose genes remain functionally mysterious. In this growing genomic landscape, simply finding a gene is no longer enough—we need clues about what that gene might be doing. CORGIAS approaches this problem almost like a genomic detective: rather than treating every association as evidence, it reconstructs the evolutionary story behind the association and asks whether the evidence survives that history. By doing so, it offers a way to separate coincidence from biological connection and potentially uncover functional relationships hidden within the vast microbial genomic landscape. The broader message is beautifully simple: genes do not evolve in isolation, and understanding what they do may require us to look beyond where they are today and reconstruct how they arrived there. Sometimes, the most important clue in a genome is not the gene itself, but the evolutionary journey it has taken.

More at https://academic.oup.com/nargab/article/7/4/lqaf182/8377910?

Annotation

https://bigd.big.ac.cn/ncov/variation/annotation

Genome wharehouse 

https://bigd.big.ac.cn/gwh/browse/index

Released Genome

https://bigd.big.ac.cn/ncov/release_genome

Download data 

ftp://download.big.ac.cn/Genome/Viruses/Coronaviridae/

Raw data

https://bigd.big.ac.cn/gsa/browse/run/?tag=Coronaviridae

Address of the bookmark: https://bigd.big.ac.cn/ncov/about

• hist: Create an histogram of k-mer occurrences from a sequence file. Adds metadata in output for easy plotting.
• gcp: K-mer GC Processor. Creates a matrix of the number of K-mers found given a GC count and a K-mer count.
• comp: K-mer comparison tool. Creates a matrix of shared K-mers between two (or three) sequence files or hashes.
• sect: SEquence Coverage estimator Tool. Estimates the coverage of each sequence in a file using K-mers from another sequence file.
• blob: Given, reads and an assembly, calculates both the read and assembly K-mer coverage along with GC% for each sequence in the assembly.SEquence Coverage estimator Tool.
• filter: Filtering tools. Contains tools for filtering k-mer hashes and FastQ/A files:
  • kmer: Produces a k-mer hash containing only k-mers within specified coverage and GC tolerances.
  • seq: Filters a sequence file based on whether or not the sequences contain k-mers within a provided hash.
• plot: Plotting tools. Contains several plotting tools to visualise K-mer and compare distributions. The following plot tools are available:
  • density: Creates a density plot from a matrix created with the "comp" tool. Typically this is used to compare two K-mer hashes produced by different NGS reads.
  • profile: Creates a K-mer coverage plot for a single sequence. Takes in fasta coverage output coverage from the "sect" tool
  • spectra-cn: Creates a stacked histogram using a matrix created with the "comp" tool. Typically this is used to compare a jellyfish hash produced from a read set to a jellyfish hash produced from an assembly. The plot shows the amount of distinct K-mers absent, as well as the copy number variation present within the assembly.
  • spectra-hist: Creates a K-mer spectra plot for a set of K-mer histograms produced either by jellyfish-histo or kat-histo.
  • spectra-mx: Creates a K-mer spectra plot for a set of K-mer histograms that are derived from selected rows or columns in a matrix produced by the "comp".

In addition, KAT contains a python script for analysing the mathematical distributions present in the K-mer spectra in order to determine how much content is present in each peak.

This README only contains some brief details of how to install and use KAT. For more extensive documentation please visit: https://kat.readthedocs.org/en/latest/

https://academic.oup.com/bioinformatics/article/33/4/574/2664339 

Address of the bookmark: https://github.com/TGAC/KAT