## Package Plan ##

environment location: /home/urbe/anaconda3

added / updated specs:
- salmon

The following packages will be downloaded:

package | build
---------------------------|-----------------
boost-1.64.0 | py36_4 331 KB conda-forge
jemalloc-5.1.0 | hfc679d8_0 8.2 MB conda-forge
boost-cpp-1.64.0 | 1 17.8 MB conda-forge
salmon-0.10.2 | 1 3.7 MB bioconda
conda-4.5.5 | py36_0 624 KB conda-forge
tbb-2018_20171205 | 0 1.2 MB conda-forge
------------------------------------------------------------
Total: 31.8 MB

The following NEW packages will be INSTALLED:

boost: 1.64.0-py36_4 conda-forge
boost-cpp: 1.64.0-1 conda-forge
jemalloc: 5.1.0-hfc679d8_0 conda-forge
salmon: 0.10.2-1 bioconda
tbb: 2018_20171205-0 conda-forge

The following packages will be UPDATED:

conda: 4.5.4-py36_0 conda-forge --> 4.5.5-py36_0 conda-forge

Proceed ([y]/n)? y

Downloading and Extracting Packages
boost-1.64.0 | 331 KB | ####################################################################################################################################### | 100%
jemalloc-5.1.0 | 8.2 MB | ####################################################################################################################################### | 100%
boost-cpp-1.64.0 | 17.8 MB | ####################################################################################################################################### | 100%
salmon-0.10.2 | 3.7 MB | ####################################################################################################################################### | 100%
conda-4.5.5 | 624 KB | ####################################################################################################################################### | 100%
tbb-2018_20171205 | 1.2 MB | ####################################################################################################################################### | 100%
Preparing transaction: done
Verifying transaction: done
Executing transaction: done

https://f1000research.com/articles/6-100/

https://github.com/jason-weirather/AlignQC

Address of the bookmark: https://www.healthcare.uiowa.edu/labs/au/AlignQC/

Address of the bookmark: https://github.com/dhlbh/BASE

• DNA-mapping*
• ChIP-seq*
• RNA-seq*
• ATAC-seq*
• scRNA-seq
• Hi-C
• Whole Genome Bisulfite Seq/WGBS

(*Also available in "allele-specific" mode)

snakePipes can be installed via conda :

'conda install -c mpi-ie -c bioconda -c conda-forge snakePipes'.

Source code (https://github.com/maxplanck-ie/snakepipes) and documentation (https://snakepipes.readthedocs.io/en/latest/) are available online.

Address of the bookmark: https://github.com/maxplanck-ie/snakepipes

The vital metaphase stage of cell division, when the sister chromatids migrated to the centre and lined up in a row, and pulled apart using attached microtubules in such a way that half the DNA ends up in each daughter cell. However, before the mitotic spindle‐mediated movement gets start and pulled DNA apart, the chromosomes are free to undergo recombination which involves the exchange of genetic material either between multiple chromosomes or between different regions of the same chromosome.

During recombination, the precise breakage of each strand, exchange between the strands, and sealing of the resulting recombined molecules happens. The “chromosomal breakpoints” refers to these places where they break. Mostly, this process occurs with a high degree of accuracy at high frequency in both eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells. But occasionally this “break and sealing/ break and reattach” process goes wrong and the reattachment happens in the wrong place which usually create disaster (with few exceptions).These chromosome disaster or abnormalities involve the gain, loss or rearrangement of visible amounts of genetic material during cell division. These abnormalities are of two type, the first one is numerical abnormalities  where severe disorders are caused by the loss or gain of whole chromosomes, which affect the copy number of hundreds or even thousands of genes. The second are structural abnormalities which can be unbalanced or balanced. The former are similar to numerical abnormalities in that genetic material is either gained or lost. The natural defects in chromosome segregation are linked to cancer and several genetic diseases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders). Therefore, the enzymes involved in regulating cell division are still the attractive drug targets for many diseases.

Apart from certain chromosome abnormalities, these “crossing over” of segments of maternal and paternal chromosomes to form hybrid chromosomes have some evolutionary importance and considered as a driver of genetic variation. Moreover, the chromosome breakage in evolution is considered to be non-random in nature(http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pcbi.0020014). In addition the study of breakpoint regions and non-breakpoint (stable) regions of chromosomes indicates both the regions evolved in distinctly different ways ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2675965/). These breakage may lead to genetic diseases or participate to chromosomal rearranmgnets and contributed in development of new species.

I will try to explain the genome hotspots/Evolutionary Breakpoint Regions(EBRs)/fragile regions/weak fragments/  in my next blog.

Software for recombination detection:

RAT http://cbr.jic.ac.uk/dicks/software/RAT/

Breakpointer https://github.com/ruping/Breakpointer

DRP http://web.cbio.uct.ac.za/~darren/rdp.html

RB-finder http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18707535

LDhat2.0 http://ldhat.sourceforge.net/LDhat2.0/instructions.shtml

Reference:

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/genetic-recombination-514#

Image: Wikipedia , sciencelearn.org.nz

Recommended Articles:

http://www.friendshipcircle.org/blog/2012/05/22/13-chromosomal-disorders-youve-never-heard-of/

http://web.udl.es/usuaris/e4650869/docencia/segoncicle/genclin98/recursos_classe_%28pdf%29/revisionsPDF/chromosyndromes.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2775595/table/T2/

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/disorders/chromosomal/

http://www.ncert.nic.in/html/learning_basket/biology/cc&cd.pdf

gapFinisher can fill gaps in draft genomes quickly and reliably.

Address of the bookmark: https://github.com/kammoji/gapFinisher

Parliament2 runs a combination of tools to generate structural variant calls on whole-genome sequencing data. It can run the following callers: Breakdancer, Breakseq2, CNVnator, Delly2, Manta, and Lumpy. Because of synergies in how the programs use computational resources, these are all run in parallel. Parliament2 will produce the outputs of each of the tools for subsequent investigation.

Address of the bookmark: https://github.com/dnanexus/parliament2

Address of the bookmark: http://pacb.com/blog/the-hifi-difference-true-long-reads-vs-synthetic-long-reads/

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

• Whole-genome sequencing
• Whole-exome sequencing
• RNA-seq (speical mode available)
• ChIP-seq

Address of the bookmark: http://qualimap.bioinfo.cipf.es/