Input

Jabba takes as input a concatenated de Bruijn graph and a set of sequences:

the de Bruijn graph should appear in fasta format with 1 entry per node, the meta information should be in the format:
>NODE
the set of sequences should be in fasta or fastq format. These sequences will be corrected (e.g. PacBio reads). The corrections will be written to a file Jabba fasta.
The output is a file in fasta format with corrections of the long reads, and additionally a file in the input format containing uncorrected reads.

https://github.com/biointec/jabba/wiki

https://almob.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13015-016-0075-7

Address of the bookmark: https://github.com/biointec/jabba

https://nxrepair.readthedocs.io/en/latest/tutorial.html

nxrepair aligned_matepairs.bam assemblyfasta.fasta error_locations.csv new_fasta.fasta

Address of the bookmark: https://github.com/rebeccaroisin/nxrepair

Address of the bookmark: http://pacb.com/blog/the-hifi-difference-true-long-reads-vs-synthetic-long-reads/

Before you go down that path, consider this critical biological question:
Are you sequencing human cells—or bacterial contamination?

The Silent Saboteur: Mycoplasma in Cell Cultures

Mycoplasma contamination remains one of the most widespread and underdiagnosed issues in tissue culture work. Studies suggest that 15–35% of cell lines in use may be contaminated, often without visible signs. Unlike other microbial infections, Mycoplasma does not produce cloudiness, odor, or a change in pH. Many researchers won’t detect it unless they specifically test for it.

The consequences, however, are profound. Mycoplasma can significantly alter:

• Host gene expression patterns

• Cell proliferation rates

• Epigenetic profiles and chromatin accessibility

• Cytokine signaling and immune responses

In short, it can skew your results, compromise your biological conclusions, and invalidate weeks or months of research.

A Simple Diagnostic Step: Map Against Mycoplasma Genomes

If you encounter poor alignment rates to the human genome, consider mapping your reads to a Mycoplasma reference genome—or better yet, use a combined human + Mycoplasma reference. There have been cases where over half of all reads, initially assumed to be from human cells, were in fact bacterial in origin. This check is fast, easy, and could save your project.

How Contamination Happens—and Persists

Mycoplasma is small (0.1–0.3 μm), lacks a cell wall, and can pass through standard filters undetected. Common sources include:

• Contaminated reagents (e.g., FBS)

• Infected cell lines obtained from other labs

• Poor aseptic technique or shared equipment

Once present, it spreads quickly between cultures and can persist for months, silently affecting results.

Why Treatment Is Difficult

While antibiotics such as Plasmocin or BM-Cyclin are sometimes used, they often offer only partial resolution and may themselves alter cell behavior. In many cases, the best course of action is to discard the contaminated culture and start with a fresh, verified stock.

Practical Recommendations for Researchers

• Routinely test for Mycoplasma using PCR, qPCR, or fluorescence-based assays

• Incorporate contamination screens into your sequencing QC pipeline

• Use combined reference genomes when mapping ambiguous reads

• Practice strict aseptic technique and monitor all incoming cell lines

• Don’t ignore unexplained data anomalies—they might point to contamination

Closing Thought: Contamination Is a Biological Variable

It’s easy to view poor mapping as a technical issue, but sometimes the problem lies deeper—in the biology itself. Mycoplasma contamination doesn’t just interfere with sequencing; it interferes with science. As a research community, we must treat contamination not as an afterthought, but as a key variable to control.

So next time your reads won’t align, don’t just tune the aligner. Ask if your cells are telling the truth—or if they're hiding something.

Script at https://github.com/MariaNattestad/ribbon

Address of the bookmark: http://genomeribbon.com/

Address of the bookmark: https://github.com/ewijaya/slidesort-bpr

What Are Chromosome Rearrangements?

Chromosome rearrangements are structural changes that alter the normal configuration of chromosomes. These changes can involve large segments of DNA — from thousands to millions of base pairs — and can occur spontaneously, be inherited, or result from exposure to mutagens (like radiation or chemicals).

Common Types of Rearrangements:

1. Deletions – Loss of a chromosome segment

2. Duplications – Repetition of a segment

3. Inversions – A segment breaks off, flips, and reattaches

4. Translocations – Segments exchange places between non-homologous chromosomes

5. Insertions – A segment is inserted into another part of the genome

These changes can disrupt genes directly or affect gene regulation, leading to disease.

How Do Chromosome Rearrangements Cause Disease?

The impact of a rearrangement depends on which genes are involved, how much DNA is affected, and when the rearrangement occurs (in development vs. adulthood). Here are some key mechanisms:

• Gene disruption: Breaking a gene can lead to loss of function or the creation of a non-functional protein.

• Gene fusion: Joining parts of two genes may form a novel hybrid gene with new functions (common in cancer).

• Dosage effects: Extra or missing gene copies can disturb the balance of gene expression.

• Position effects: Moving a gene to a new regulatory environment may silence or over-activate it.

Chromosome Rearrangements in Human Disease

1. Developmental Disorders

• Cri-du-chat syndrome: Caused by a deletion on chromosome 5p. Affected infants often have a high-pitched cry and intellectual disability.

• Williams syndrome: Results from a microdeletion on chromosome 7q, affecting genes related to cardiovascular and cognitive function.

2. Cancer

Cancer is perhaps the most striking example of disease caused by chromosome rearrangements.

• Chronic Myeloid Leukemia (CML): Caused by a translocation between chromosomes 9 and 22, forming the Philadelphia chromosome. This creates the BCR-ABL fusion gene, which drives uncontrolled cell growth.

• Burkitt lymphoma: Involves translocation of the MYC gene, leading to excessive cell division.

• Ewing sarcoma: A fusion of EWSR1 and FLI1 genes through translocation promotes tumor development.

3. Infertility and Miscarriages

Balanced rearrangements (like inversions or translocations) in carriers may not cause disease directly but can result in:

• Recurrent miscarriages

• Infertility

• Birth defects in offspring

Detecting Rearrangements

Thanks to modern genomics, chromosome rearrangements can now be detected with high precision using:

• Karyotyping – Classic method for detecting large rearrangements

• FISH (Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization) – Uses fluorescent probes to target specific DNA sequences

• Array CGH (Comparative Genomic Hybridization) – Detects copy number changes across the genome

• Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) – Identifies even small or complex rearrangements at base-pair resolution

Looking Forward: The Future of Chromosome Medicine

Understanding chromosome rearrangements is now central to:

• Personalized medicine

• Genetic counseling

• Targeted therapies, especially in cancer (e.g., tyrosine kinase inhibitors for BCR-ABL fusion)

With the rise of long-read sequencing and single-cell genomics, even previously “invisible” rearrangements are being uncovered, offering new insights into both rare diseases and common conditions.

Final Thoughts

Chromosome rearrangements remind us that genetics isn't just about which genes we have — but where they are, how they're arranged, and when they're active. As our tools grow sharper, so does our ability to diagnose, understand, and treat diseases rooted in genomic architecture.

In a way, the genome is like a book not just defined by its words, but also by how the chapters are ordered. Rearranging them can create a new story — sometimes harmful, sometimes insightful — and understanding these changes is key to writing a healthier future.

Cactus uses substantial resources. For primate-sized genomes (3 gigabases each), you should expect Cactus to use approximately 120 CPU-days of compute per genome, with about 120 GB of RAM used at peak. The requirements scale roughly quadratically, so aligning two 1-megabase bacterial genomes takes only 1.5 CPU-hours and 14 GB RAM. 

Address of the bookmark: https://github.com/ComparativeGenomicsToolkit/cactus

http://biogps.org/#goto=welcome

Address of the bookmark: http://biogps.org/#goto=welcome

Address of the bookmark: http://www.compbio.dundee.ac.uk/jpred4/