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

More at https://kevlar.readthedocs.io/en/latest/

https://www.cell.com/iscience/pdf/S2589-0042(19)30259-7.pdf

Address of the bookmark: https://github.com/kevlar-dev/kevlar

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

Address of the bookmark: http://omega.omicsbio.org/

So far miniasm is in early development stage. It has only been tested on a dozen of PacBio and Oxford Nanopore (ONT) bacterial data sets. Including the mapping step, it takes about 3 minutes to assemble a bacterial genome. Under the default setting, miniasm assembles 9 out of 12 PacBio datasets and 3 out of 4 ONT datasets into a single contig. The 12 PacBio data sets are PacBio E. coli sample, ERS473430, ERS544009, ERS554120, ERS605484, ERS617393, ERS646601, ERS659581, ERS670327, ERS685285, ERS743109 and a deprecated PacBio E. coli data set. ONT data are acquired from the Loman Lab.

For a C. elegans PacBio data set (only 40X are used, not the whole dataset), miniasm finishes the assembly, including reads overlapping, in ~10 minutes with 16 CPUs. The total assembly size is 105Mb; the N50 is 1.94Mb. In comparison, the HGAP3produces a 104Mb assembly with N50 1.61Mb. This dotter plot gives a global view of the miniasm assembly (on the X axis) and the HGAP3 assembly (on Y). They are broadly comparable. Of course, the HGAP3 consensus sequences are much more accurate. In addition, on the whole data set (assembled in ~30 min), the miniasm N50 is reduced to 1.79Mb. Miniasm still needs improvements.

Miniasm confirms that at least for high-coverage bacterial genomes, it is possible to generate long contigs from raw PacBio or ONT reads without error correction. It also shows that minimap can be used as a read overlapper, even though it is probably not as sensitive as the more sophisticated overlapers such as MHAP and DALIGNER. Coupled with long-read error correctors and consensus tools, miniasm may also be useful to produce high-quality assemblies.

Minimap and miniasm are ultrafast tools for (i) mapping and (ii) assembly. Designed for long, noisy reads, they do not have a correction or consensus step, and therefore the resulting assemblies are contiguous (i.e. long) but very noisy (i.e. full of errors)

We start with an all against all comparison:

minimap -Sw5 -L100 -m0 -t8 reads.fq reads.fq | gzip -1 > reads.paf.gz

Then we can assemble

miniasm -f reads.fq reads.paf.gz > reads.gfa

Convert GFA to FASTA:

awk '/^S/{print ">"$2"\n"$3}' reads.gfa | fold > reads.fa

And then count how many contigs:

grep ">" reads.fa | wc -l

# Download sample PacBio from the PBcR website
wget -O- http://www.cbcb.umd.edu/software/PBcR/data/selfSampleData.tar.gz | tar zxf -
ln -s selfSampleData/pacbio_filtered.fastq reads.fq
# Install minimap and miniasm (requiring gcc and zlib)
git clone https://github.com/lh3/minimap && (cd minimap && make)
git clone https://github.com/lh3/miniasm && (cd miniasm && make)
# Overlap
minimap/minimap -Sw5 -L100 -m0 -t8 reads.fq reads.fq | gzip -1 > reads.paf.gz
# Layout
miniasm/miniasm -f reads.fq reads.paf.gz > reads.gfa

Address of the bookmark: https://github.com/lh3/miniasm

https://github.com/ggonnella/rgfa

Address of the bookmark: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5103826/

Address of the bookmark: https://github.com/tangerzhang/ALLHiC/wiki

Address of the bookmark: https://github.com/walaj/svaba