GENXPRO GMBH, ALTENHÖFERALLEE 3, 60438 FRANKFURT MAIN, GERMANY

Website: http://www.genxpro.info/products_and_services/

PHONE: +49 (0)69- 95 73 97 10, FAX: +49 (0)69- 95 73 97 06

EMAIL: info@genxpro.de

Cleaning your data in this way is often required: Reads from small-RNA sequencing contain the 3’ sequencing adapter because the read is longer than the molecule that is sequenced. Amplicon reads start with a primer sequence. Poly-A tails are useful for pulling out RNA from your sample, but often you don’t want them to be in your reads.

Cutadapt helps with these trimming tasks by finding the adapter or primer sequences in an error-tolerant way. It can also modify and filter reads in various ways. Adapter sequences can contain IUPAC wildcard characters. Also, paired-end reads and even colorspace data is supported. If you want, you can also just demultiplex your input data, without removing adapter sequences at all.

Cutadapt comes with an extensive suite of automated tests and is available under the terms of the MIT license.

If you use cutadapt, please cite DOI:10.14806/ej.17.1.200 .

Address of the bookmark: https://cutadapt.readthedocs.io/en/stable/installation.html#quickstart

Address of the bookmark: https://github.com/vice87/gam-ngs

simNGS takes fasta format sequences and a file describing the covariance of noise between bases and cycles observed in an actual run of the machine, randomly generates noisy intensities representing the signals for the sequence at each cycle and calculates likelihoods for all possible base calls.

Address of the bookmark: https://www.ebi.ac.uk/goldman-srv/simNGS/

More at https://academic.oup.com/bioinformatics/advance-article/doi/10.1093/bioinformatics/btaa179/5804978?rss=1

Address of the bookmark: https://github.com/CMU-SAFARI/Apollo

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

Link for those who looking for structure of Bam and sff file:

Bam:

http://samtools.sourceforge.net/SAMv1.pdf (from page 12)

sff file (for Ion torrent and 454 files):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Traces/trace.cgi?cmd=show&f=formats&m=doc&s=format#sff

Binary file Editor and Viewer:

http://mh-nexus.de/en/hxd/

http://www.isb-sib.ch/education/training-courses.html

Canadian bioinformatics also organises various bioinformatics and sequencing courses:

http://bioinformatics.ca/workshops

In addition to above two, EMBI Europe, EMBO Europe, Cold Spring Harbour USA, Wellcome Trust UK and NOVA Europe also organise bioinformatics and sequencing courses annually:

http://www.embl.de/training/events/index.php?p_outstation=ALL

http://www.embo.org/funding-awards/courses-workshops

http://meetings.cshl.edu/courses.html

http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/Education-resources/Courses-and-conferences/Advanced-Courses-and-Scientific-Conferences/Advanced-Courses/index.htm

http://www.nova-university.org/pagetop.cfm?MenySidorTop_id=2&open=7

Dan Kortschak, Bioinformatics Group, School of Molecular and Biomedical Science ,The University of Adelaide

Address of the bookmark: http://talks.biogo.googlecode.com/git/illumination/illumination.pdf