The "Ifs" of NGS QC and Trimming

1. Ensures Data Integrity
   If you want to minimize errors in downstream analyses, QC and trimming remove low-quality reads and bases, ensuring high-confidence data. This step is essential for reliable variant calling, assembly, and other applications.

2. Removes Contaminants
   If adapter sequences or contaminants are present in the raw reads, trimming can eliminate them. This prevents issues like misalignment or incorrect biological interpretations, ensuring cleaner data for analysis.

3. Improves Mapping and Assembly
   If your goal is better alignment to a reference genome or improved de novo assembly, trimming low-quality bases and adapters is critical. High-quality reads map more efficiently and generate more accurate assemblies.

4. Reduces Computational Load
   If you want to save computational resources, trimming reduces the dataset size, which speeds up processing and analysis. Clean datasets mean less computational time spent on processing low-quality data.

5. Prepares for Standardized Analyses
   If your project involves multiple datasets, QC and trimming ensure uniformity across them. This standardization makes comparisons valid and reproducible, particularly in large collaborative studies.

The "Buts" of NGS QC and Trimming

1. Risk of Over-Trimming
   But excessive trimming can lead to the loss of informative sequences, reducing read depth and potentially discarding biologically relevant data. This is especially critical in studies with limited sequencing depth.

2. Bias Introduction
   But trimming algorithms might introduce biases, especially if they inadvertently remove sequences with specific biological patterns. This can skew results and compromise biological insights.

3. Loss of Context in Paired-End Reads
   But trimming one read in a pair more than the other can lead to loss of pairing information. This complicates downstream analyses that rely on paired-end data, such as structural variant detection.

4. Time and Resource Intensive
   But running QC and trimming for large datasets can be computationally expensive and time-consuming. As sequencing depth increases, preprocessing becomes a bottleneck in the analysis pipeline.

5. Variable Standards
   But the criteria for trimming (e.g., quality threshold, minimum read length) can vary between tools and datasets. This variability may affect reproducibility and comparability of results across studies.

Balancing the "Ifs" and "Buts"

To maximize the benefits of QC and trimming while mitigating the challenges, consider the following best practices:

• Use QC Tools Wisely: Start with tools like FastQC to identify quality issues in your raw data. Visualizing quality metrics helps tailor your trimming parameters.

• Choose Reliable Trimming Tools: Tools like Trimmomatic, Cutadapt, and BBduk offer adaptive and customizable trimming options. Select one that aligns with your dataset and project goals.

• Set Reasonable Parameters: Avoid over-trimming by setting quality thresholds and minimum read lengths that balance data retention and quality improvement.

• Test Downstream Effects: Validate the impact of QC and trimming on downstream analyses, such as alignment efficiency, variant calling accuracy, or assembly quality.

• Document Your Workflow: Maintain detailed records of the parameters and tools used for QC and trimming. This ensures reproducibility and enables better troubleshooting.

Conclusion

NGS quality control and trimming are essential steps to ensure reliable and accurate data for analysis. While the "ifs" highlight the clear benefits of these steps, the "buts" remind us of the potential pitfalls. By adopting best practices and carefully balancing these considerations, you can optimize your preprocessing workflow and unlock the full potential of your sequencing data.

minimap -t 24 assembly.fasta long_reads.fastq.gz | racon -t 24 long_reads.fastq.gz - assembly.fasta racon_assembly.fasta
nucmer -p nucmer assembly.fasta racon_assembly.fasta
show-snps -C -T -r nucmer.delta

This reports Racon's changes in a table. You can exclude indels with the -I option in show-snps. 

This process (Racon -> MUMmer -> SNP table) solves the problem I originally raised in this issue. So as far as I'm concerned, you can close this issue (or keep it open if you still want to implement some kind of variant table).

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/#

More at https://kevlar.readthedocs.io/en/latest/

https://www.cell.com/iscience/pdf/S2589-0042(19)30259-7.pdf

Address of the bookmark: https://github.com/kevlar-dev/kevlar

Script https://sourceforge.net/projects/c-l-authenticator/files/

Address of the bookmark: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0155459

RaGOO is a tool for coalescing genome assembly contigs into pseudochromosomes via minimap2 alignments to a closely related reference genome. The focus of this tool is on practicality and therefore has the following features:

1. Good performance. On a MacBook Pro using Arabidopsis data, pseudochromosome construction takes less than a minute and the whole pipeline with SV calling takes ~2 minutes.
2. Intact ordering and orienting of contigs.
3. Chimeric contig correction
4. GFF lift-over
5. Structural variant calling with and integrated version of Assemblytics
6. Confidence scores associated with the grouping, localization, and orientation for each contig.

Address of the bookmark: https://github.com/malonge/RaGOO

• Their relative orientation is correct
• Their relative order is correct
• The gap estimate is similar to the true distance on the reference

The problem of scaffolding validation is also a challenging one. One of the main issues which hinders from an adequate scaffolding evaluation are genome repeats. The previous standard for evaluation (Hunt et al., Genome Biology, 2014) did not take into account repeats. In this evaluation framework, repeats are taken into account.

The new evaluation framework considers the optimal assignment of contigs in the output scaffolding to contigs in the reference scaffolding in the sense of the number of correct links.

https://github.com/mandricigor/repeat-aware

Address of the bookmark: https://github.com/mandricigor/repeat-aware

Address of the bookmark: https://github.com/tangerzhang/ALLHiC/wiki

Address of the bookmark: https://github.com/esolares/HapSolo

Source: Life technologies

Address of the bookmark: http://www.lifetechnologies.com/global/en/home/communities-social/blog/blogs/sequencing-solutions-to-world-health.html?cid=social_blogseries_20130829_11098264