LPI scores are inversely proportional to the phylogenetic distance between database match sequences and the query genome. These scores are useful not only for large-scalede novo predictions of horizontally transferred proteins, but can also serve as an independent quality control test for potential horizontal transfer candidates identified by alternative methods, especially those based on nucleic acid signatures. Candidates having high LPI scores are unlikely to have been horizontally transferred, since they are highly conserved among closely related organisms.

One unique and powerful feature of the DarkHorse HGT Candidate database is the opportunity to explore the phylogenetic background of potential HGT donors as well as recipients. The breadth of the database allows not only query sequences, but also their database match partners to be evaluated for sequence similarity or novelty compared to taxonomically related organisms.

DarkHorse is configurable for varying degrees of phylogenetic granularity and protein sequence conservation. Users should consult the references cited below for a complete explanation of parameter selection and result interpretation. A brief tutorial page is also available on-line.

Address of the bookmark: http://darkhorse.ucsd.edu/download.html

With advances in Cancer Genomics, Mutation Annotation Format (MAF) is being widley accepted and used to store variants detected. The Cancer Genome Atlas Project has seqenced over 30 different cancers with sample size of each cancer type being over 200. The resulting data consisting of genetic variants is stored in the form of Mutation Annotation Format. This package attempts to summarize, analyze, annotate and visualize MAF files in an efficient manner either from TCGA sources or any in-house studies as long as the data is in MAF format. Maftools can also handle ICGC Simple Somatic Mutation format.

maftools is on bioRxiv

Please cite the below if you find this tool useful for you.

Mayakonda, A. and H.P. Koeffler, Maftools: Efficient analysis, visualization and summarization of MAF files from large-scale cohort based cancer studies. bioRxiv, 2016. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/052662

Address of the bookmark: https://github.com/PoisonAlien/maftools

Address of the bookmark: http://christophergandrud.github.io/d3Network/

AutoDock

Stochastic (GA)

Flexible ligand and partially flexible target

ArgusLab

Systematic

Flexible ligandX-Score based

DOCK

Systematic (IC)

Flexible ligandDOCK 3.5 (force field)

eHITS

Systematic (RBD of fragments followed by reconstruction)Flexible ligand and partially flexible targetHiTS_Score (empirical)

FlexX

Systematic (IC)Flexible ligandFlexX SF (empirical)Commercial

FLIPDock

Stochastic (GA)Flexible ligand and flexible targetAUTODOCK (empirical)

FRED

Systematic (RBD)Flexible ligandChemScore, PLP, ScreenScore, ChemGauss (empirical/consensus)

GOLD

Stochastic (GA)

Flexible ligand and partially flexible targetGoldScore, ChemScore (empirical), ASP (knowledge based)

ICM

Stochastic (MC)

Flexible ligand and partially flexible targetICM SF (empirical)

ParDOCK

Stochastic (MC)

RigidBAPPL (empirical)

PLANTS

Stochastic (ACO)Flexible ligand and partially flexible target

CHEMPLP, PLP (empirical)

Surflex

Systematic (IC/MA)Flexible ligandHammerhead based (empirical)

Point to note:

Several studies have shown that the performance of most docking tools is highly dependent on the particular characteristics of both the binding site and the ligand to be investigated, and the determination which method would be more suitable in a specific context is difficult. We encouraged you to check several docking methods to determine which one(s) work best for your system.

Scallop paper has been published at Nature Biotechnology. The datasets and scripts used in this paper to compare the performance of Scallop and other assemblers are available at scalloptest.

Please also checkout the podcast about Scallop (thanks Roman Cheplyaka for the interview). It is available at both the bioinformatics chat and iTunes.

https://github.com/Kingsford-Group/scallop

Address of the bookmark: https://github.com/Kingsford-Group/scallop

Address of the bookmark: http://www.phytools.org/Cordoba2017/ex/2/Intro-to-phylogenies.html

2. Parallel sequencing lives, or what makes large sequencing projects successful https://academic.oup.com/gigascience/article/6/11/gix100/4557140?login=false

3. Common-sense approaches to sharing tabular data alongside publication https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666389921002300

4. A Reproducible Data Analysis Workflow with R Markdown, Git, Make, and Docker https://psyarxiv.com/8xzqy/

5. Practical Computational Reproducibility in the Life Sciences https://www.cell.com/cell-systems/fulltext/S2405-4712(18)30140-6

6. A video by Dr.Keith A. Baggerly from MD Anderson [The Importance of Reproducible Research in High-Throughput Biology](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gYIs7uYbMo) highly recommended.

7. Ten Simple Rules for Reproducible Computational Research http://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003285)

8. Good Enough Practices in Scientific Computing http://arxiv.org/abs/1609.00037 

9. Best Practices for Scientific Computing https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001745

10. A Quick Guide to Organizing Computational Biology Projects http://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.100042  A must read for computational biologists!

11. Reproducibility of computational workflows is automated using continuous analysis https://www.nature.com/articles/nbt.3780

12. Five selfish reasons to work reproducibly https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-015-0850-7

In an age where pathogens continue to evolve and cross boundaries, understanding what makes them virulent—that is, capable of causing disease—has become a critical focus in modern microbiology and genomics. Virulence prediction bridges computational biology, genomics, and machine learning to forecast the pathogenic potential of microbes before they strike.

What Is Virulence?

Virulence refers to the degree of damage a pathogen can inflict on its host. It is determined by a combination of genetic factors—called virulence factors (VFs)—that allow the organism to attach, invade, evade, and harm the host. These include genes coding for toxins, secretion systems, adhesins, and enzymes that disrupt host defenses.

Understanding virulence factors not only helps in deciphering the mechanisms of infection but also provides early warning signs for emerging threats.

Why Predict Virulence?

Traditional virulence studies relied heavily on experimental infection models, which, although accurate, are time-consuming, expensive, and ethically constrained.
Today, the availability of whole-genome sequences and large-scale pathogen databases has paved the way for in silico virulence prediction—a computational approach that can screen thousands of genomes within hours.

This approach enables researchers to:

• Rapidly identify potential high-risk strains.

• Prioritize pathogens for containment, surveillance, or further study.

• Guide vaccine development and drug target discovery.

• Support One Health frameworks, linking animal, human, and environmental health data.

How Is Virulence Predicted?

Virulence prediction combines bioinformatics pipelines with machine learning and comparative genomics. The process generally involves:

1. Genome Annotation: Identifying genes and coding sequences in microbial genomes.

2. Feature Extraction: Comparing sequences with curated databases like VFDB (Virulence Factor Database), PATRIC, or Victors.

3. Pattern Recognition: Using algorithms (e.g., Random Forest, SVM, or deep learning models) to classify genes or strains as virulent or non-virulent based on sequence patterns, motifs, and protein domains.

4. Scoring and Visualization: Assigning a virulence score or confidence level and visualizing it through heatmaps or genome maps.

Tools and Resources for Virulence Prediction

A number of tools and databases make virulence prediction accessible to the scientific community:

• VFanalyzer – For identifying virulence genes based on VFDB.

• PathoFact – Predicts virulence, antimicrobial resistance (AMR), and toxin genes from metagenomic data.

• Pangenome-based models – Identify virulence-associated gene clusters across strains.

• Machine learning models – Use features like GC content, codon usage bias, or protein domains to predict pathogenicity.

Emerging tools now integrate multi-omic data—including transcriptomics, proteomics, and metabolomics—to understand virulence in a systems biology framework.

Applications in the Real World

Virulence prediction has major implications across public health and research sectors:

• Epidemic preparedness: Early identification of virulent strains in outbreak samples.

• AMR surveillance: Linking virulence profiles with antibiotic resistance determinants.

• Environmental monitoring: Predicting pathogenic potential of soil or waterborne microbes.

• Clinical diagnostics: Supporting personalized treatment through pathogen profiling.

For instance, integrating virulence prediction pipelines into national surveillance networks could enable faster risk assessment and response to infectious outbreaks.

The Road Ahead

As machine learning and genomics advance, virulence prediction will evolve from simple gene-based detection to dynamic, context-aware models that account for host–pathogen interactions, environmental signals, and evolutionary adaptation.

Future tools may predict not just if a strain is virulent, but under what conditions it expresses that virulence—bridging the gap between genotype and phenotype.

In Summary

Virulence prediction is redefining how we understand and anticipate infectious diseases. By coupling genomic insights with computational intelligence, researchers can identify potential threats earlier, design smarter interventions, and ultimately, strengthen our preparedness against emerging pathogens.

However, nanopore sequencing is an emerging and rapidly developing technology. It is not clear what will be most informative. We hope that IONiseR will provide a framework for visualisation of metrics that we haven’t thought of, and welcome feedback at mike.smith@embl.de.

If you’re not interested in the quality assement of the raw or event level data, and want to jump straight to the getting FASTQ format files from fast5 files you can go straight to the final section of this document.

Address of the bookmark: https://www.bioconductor.org/packages/devel/bioc/vignettes/IONiseR/inst/doc/IONiseR.html