To address the challenges of describing and estimating virodiversity, a team of investigators from Center for Infection and Immunity (CII) and EcoHealth Alliance began in jungles of Bangladesh - home to the flying fox.

Reference:

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/news-by-industry/et-cetera/mammals-harbour-at-least-320000-new-viruses/articleshow/22253268.cms

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23932400

Run Maq Now

Follow these steps to try Maq. All you need is a reference sequence file in the FASTA format.

1. Prepare a reference sequence (ref.fasta). Better a bacterial genome.
2. Download maq, maq-data and maqview at the download page.
3. Copy maq, maq.pl and maq_eval.pl to the $PATH or to the same directory.
4. Simulate diploid reference and read sequences, map reads, call variants and evaluate the results in one go:

   maq.pl demo ref.fasta calib-30.dat
   

   where calib-30.dat is contained in maq-data.
5. View the alignment:

   cd maqdemo/easyrun;
   maqindex -i -c consensus.cns all.map;
   maqview -c consensus.cns all.map

Even for advanced maq users, running `maq.pl demo' is recommended. You may find something helpful.

Address of the bookmark: http://maq.sourceforge.net

Address of the bookmark: http://bioinformatics.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/02/12/bioinformatics.btu078.full.pdf

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

Reads are simulated from both strands of a provided or randomly generated reference sequence.

Address of the bookmark: https://bitbucket.org/genomeinformatics/simlord/

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

Calculate how much sequencing you need to hit a target depth of coverage (or vice versa).

Instructions: set the read length/configuration and genome size, then select what you want to calculate.

Written by Stephen Turner, based on the Lander-Waterman formula, inspired by a similar calculator written by James Hadfield. Coverage is calculated as C=LN/G and reads as N=CG/L where C = Coverage (X),L = Read length (bp), G = Haploid genome size (bp), and N = Number of reads. Source code on GitHub.

Address of the bookmark: http://apps.bioconnector.virginia.edu/covcalc/

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

kallisto