Research Directions

Stony corals: evolution of novelty and photosymbiosis

Symbiotic acoels: cell type evolution and photosymbiosis

Animal genomes: structural evolution and gene regulation

https://sgel.biodiv.tw/home

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

 https://academic.oup.com/bioinformatics/article/34/15/2666/4934939

Address of the bookmark: https://github.com/wdecoster/nanoQC

More at http://przeworski.c2b2.columbia.edu/

Chimeric Alignment: An alignment of a read that cannot be represented as a linear alignment. Typically, one of the linear alignments in a chimeric alignment is considered the “representative” alignment, and the others are called “supplementary” and are distinguished by the supplementary alignment flag.

Chimeric reads are indicative of structural variation in DNA-seq and it may indicate the presence of chimeric genes in RNA-seq.

In short, chimeric reads can be split in to two or more parts, each part would be mapped to reference(it’s not hard-clipped), the total length of the mapped part is longger than read length.

Representative alignment: A chimeric alignment that is represented as a set of linear alignments that do not have large overlaps typically has one linear alignment that is considered the representative alignment.

One read can align to multiple positions, we can find one alignmnet position which sequence do not have large overlaps, it called representative alighment, for other alignment positions, we called them supplementary alignment.

It seems that GATK can realignment those representative reads to the correctly position via RealignerTargetCreator and IndelRealigner. (WARNING: I am not quite sure if I understand this correctly. If someone could help me, please leave me a message below, thanks, thanks.)

Supplementary Alignment: A chimeric reads but not a representative reads.

Primary Alignment and Secondary Alignment: A read may map ambiguously to multiple locations, e.g. due to repeats. Only one of the multiple read alignments is considered primary, and this decision may be arbitrary. All other alignments have the secondary alignment flag.

A fairly complete on-line guide to BLAST searching can be found at the NCBI BLAST Help Manual. For a theoretical overview of BLAST, see the NCBI BLAST Course. Additional information can be found in the BLAST 2.0 Release Notes

Supported and Suggested Values for Gap Open and Extension in BLASTP, BLASTX, TBLASTN, and TBLASTX

Address of the bookmark: https://www.arabidopsis.org/Blast/BLASToptions.jsp

https://academic.oup.com/bioinformaticsadvances/advance-article/doi/10.1093/bioadv/vbaf208/8257678?login=true

Address of the bookmark: https://github.com/sib-swiss/termal

https://bmcbioinformatics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12859-015-0644-7

Address of the bookmark: https://sourceforge.net/projects/surankco/

I made Rebaler for bacterial genomes (specifically for the task of testing basecallers). It should in principle work for non-bacterial genomes as well, but I haven't tested it.

Address of the bookmark: https://github.com/rrwick/Rebaler