Project Scientist-I
Experimental / Computation analysis experience in highthroughput genomics/ clinical application.

Project Manager
Experience in handling large biological projects involving high-throughput genomics/ clinical application.

Scientific Administrative Assistant
Lab Work.

More at https://vinodscaria.genomes.in/positionsopen

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.

Address of the bookmark: https://github.com/broadinstitute/VariantBam

A swift, versatile phylogenomic and high-throughput sequencing simulator https://jackalope.lucasnell.com

Address of the bookmark: https://github.com/lucasnell/jackalope

Address of the bookmark: http://samtools.sourceforge.net/swlist.shtml

https://github.com/pditommaso/awesome-pipeline

Address of the bookmark: https://github.com/pditommaso/awesome-pipeline

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.