Abstract: Strand NGS supports an extensive workflow for the analysis and visualization of RNA-Seq data. The workflow includes Transcriptome / Genome alignment, Differential expression analysis with Statistical approach and Splicing events detection. Strand NGS also supports novel discovery like identification of novel genes, exons and Novel splice junctions, alongside it can also detect gene fusion events. Further downstream analysis such as GO and pathway analysis can be performed on the set of interesting genes. The product has an option to create pipelines for time consuming jobs which automates analysis and leaves more time for end data interpretation. This webinar will give an overview of the features in the RNA-Seq data analysis workflow in Strand NGS and also highlights on parameters within each feature that can be optimized depending on datasets and analysis needs.

Speaker: Mr. Sugandan Sivamani, Senior Application Scientist, Strand Life Sciences

Date: 9th Nov, Session 1 for SAPK/ APFO: 2:30 PM IST Date: 9th Nov, Session 2 for AFO/ EMEA: 9:00 AM PST

Register here http://www.strand-ngs.com/webinar_registration

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/

Address of the bookmark: https://github.com/yjx1217/LRSDAY

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

Address of the bookmark: http://www.genengnews.com/keywordsandtools/print/3/32115/

Average read length is around 8,500 base pairs in release dataset. Best thing about this, there is not much effect on cost and quality of data.

You can also check following pages for publications on long reads and more:

http://www.illumina.com/services/long-read-sequencing-service.ilmn

http://blog.basespace.illumina.com/2013/07/22/first-data-set-from-fasttrack-long-reads-early-access-service/

genomic scale studies
endogenous mechanisms of mutations, germ line and somatic
computational aspects of immunology in cancer
signalling networks
three-dimensional organization of information in the nucleus
gene silencing
metastatic cross-talk
kinase signaling
personalized medicine
detection of biomarkers in cancer
historical DNA variation

From : http://www.ous-research.no/hovig/

Group address:
Eivind Hovig, The Norwegian Radium Hospital, Montebello, 0310 Oslo,Norway
Email: ehovig@radium.uio.no

http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2013/09/24/new-cu-boulder-led-study-finds-%E2%80%98microbial-clock%E2%80%99-may-help-determine-time

Paper:

http://www.elifesciences.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/eLife.01104_INPRESS.pdf

https://www.crops.org/publications/tpg/articles/6/2/plantgenome2013.03.0001in

Address of the bookmark: https://www.crops.org/publications/tpg/pdfs/6/2/plantgenome2013.03.0001in

Apply to Genotypic Technology if you are a PhD in Life Sciences/ Molecular Biology/ Biotechnology/ Human Genetics/ Bioinformatics with minimum 4-5 years post doctoral experience as well as publications in peer reviewed journals.

Source: http://www.genotypic.co.in/Careers/2/Current-Openings.aspx