More at http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/09/21/076463 

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

Paper at https://gigascience.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13742-015-0076-3

Address of the bookmark: https://github.com/warrenlr/LINKS/

More at

https://github.com/jts/sga

SGA dependencies:
-google sparse hash library (http://code.google.com/p/google-sparsehash/)
-the bamtools library (https://github.com/pezmaster31/bamtools)
-zlib (http://www.zlib.net/)
-(optional but suggested) the jemalloc memory allocator (http://www.canonware.com/jemalloc/download.html)

Address of the bookmark: https://github.com/jts/sga

Structural variants (SVs) such as deletions, insertions, duplications, inversions and translocations litter genomes and are often associated with gene expression changes and severe phenotypes (ie. genetic diseases in humans). Recent studies on the functional aspects of different types of SVs have unveiled several cases of adaptive evolution. For example, inversions have been associated with ecological adaptations and may facilitate speciation. Due to their prevalent nature, SVs arguably have a large impact on genome evolution and should not be neglected when studying the genetics of adaptation and speciation. SVs were classically defined as chromosomal rearrangements larger than 1kb, but due to a higher resolution of new detection methods, smaller variants (between 50 and 1000 base pairs) can now be accurately assessed. Besides various methods of detection in next generation sequencing data (paired end mapping, split reads, and depth of coverage), array-based approaches have proven to be particularly useful for detecting copy number variations (CNVs). These technologies have enabled researchers to catalog a wide spectrum of SVs in many organisms and infer the effects of selection shaping their evolutionary trajectories.

Structure variation sequencing signature (Source: NatRev Genetics)

Related tools, databases and publications are listed below. If you know any interesing papers, please let us know in comment section:

Key concepts

Structural variation includes balanced variants such as inversions and translocations, and unbalanced ones such as duplications and deletions (copy number variations or CNVs).

Structural variants can arise by several mechanisms, including nonallelic homologous recombination (NAHR), nonhomologous end‐joining (NHEJ) and DNA replication‐based fork stalling and template switching (FoSTeS).

CNV is closely linked to segmental duplication, but is not exactly the same. Segmental duplications can stimulate CNV formation by NAHR, and themselves arise from CNVs that have become fixed.

Segmental duplications did not appear uniformly during the evolution of the Great Ape species, but rather during a burst of activity around the time of the divergence of gorilla from the human/chimpanzee ancestor.

Duplicated genes play a critical role in the evolution of a genome as they act as ‘spare parts’ than can evolve to perform new or more specialized functions.

Effects of structural variation on gene expression can be identified but only a few examples of the consequences for species biology have been documented.

Tools

CNVnatora tool for CNV discovery and genotyping from depth of read mapping.2011a,2011b

AGEa tools that implements an algorithm for optimal alignment of sequences with SVs.2011

BreakSeqa pipeline for annotation, classification and analysis of SVs at single nucleotide resolution.2010

PEMera computational and simulation framework for discovering SVs by paired-end read mapping.2009,2007

GASV https://code.google.com/archive/p/gasv/

PAIROSCOPE http://pairoscope.sourceforge.net/

SVDetect http://svdetect.sourceforge.net/Site/Home.html

BreakPtr, discovery of unbalanced structural variants (copy-number variants) with tiling microarrays Link 

R Package https://www.bioconductor.org/help/course-materials/2010/EMBL2010/Practical-4-StructuralVariants.pdf

BreakSeq, structural variant genotyping using split reads Link 

CopySeq, genotyping of unbalanced structural variants (copy-number variants) using read-depth Link 

DELLY2, integrated structural variant discovery, genotyping and visualization in deep sequencing data Link 

PEMer, structural variant discovery in 454 sequencing data by paired-end mapping Link 

TIGER, transduction inference in germline genomes using short read data Link 

MANTA https://github.com/Illumina/manta

SV-Bay https://github.com/InstitutCurie/SV-Bay

BreakDancer http://breakdancer.sourceforge.net/

Variation Hunter http://compbio.cs.sfu.ca/software-variation-hunter

Lumpy https://github.com/arq5x/lumpy-sv

ForestSV http://sebatlab.ucsd.edu/index.php/software-data 

PBSuites for long reads https://sourceforge.net/projects/pb-jelly/

Visualization

The SV visualization tool: http://genomesavant.com/savant/

InGAP-SV (http://ingap.sourceforge.net/) that is nice tools for both detection and visualisation of severals kind of structural variations (Large insertions, translocation, deletion, inversions....) 

Tools table: http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v29/n8/fig_tab/nbt.1904_T2.html

Variation Viewer https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/variation/view/

Papers

http://www.nature.com/nmeth/journal/v9/n2/full/nmeth.1858.html

http://journal.frontiersin.org/researchtopic/1412/structural-variations-in-genomes-ecological-and-evolutionary-implications

http://www.mi.fu-berlin.de/wiki/pub/ABI/GenomicsLecture10Materials/structural-variation.pdf

http://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12864-015-1479-3

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/dbvar/content/overview/

http://www.nature.com/subjects/structural-variation

https://eichlerlab.gs.washington.edu/news/NatMeth_Feb2012.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19477992 ***

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22452995

http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/09/06/073833

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4479793/

http://www.nature.com/articles/srep18501

http://www.genetics.org/content/202/1/351

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~sssykim/teaching/s13/slides/Lecture_SVI.pdf

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/structural-variation-detection-from-next-generation-sequencing-2469-9853-S1-007.php?aid=69055

http://schatzlab.cshl.edu/presentations/2016/2016.01.12.PAG.Structural%20Variations.pdf

Address of the bookmark: http://garm-meta-assem.sourceforge.net/

Address of the bookmark: https://github.com/mahulchak/quickmerge

Address of the bookmark: http://www.mgc.ac.cn/GenomeComp/

CABOG is one of many software programs called genome assemblers. These programs exist to overcome the fundamental limitation of all sequencing machines, namely, that they read out very few DNA letters at a time. These programs reconstruct genomes that are billions of letters long from the hundreds of letters per read that modern sequencers provide. What these programs do is often described as a scaled up version of a family solving a jigsaw puzzle.

The CABOG software was the first to accomplish many scientific goals. It was the first to assemble the genome of a multicellular organism (Drosophila melanogaster, 2000). It was the first to assemble both parental haplotypes of one human genome (J. Craig Venter, 2007). It was the first to assemble environmental sequence from the oceans (Sargasso Sea in 2004 and Global Ocean Sampling in 2007). It was first to combine reads from first-generation Sanger sequencing machines and second-generation pyrosequencing machines (Marine microbes, 2006). Today, CABOG is one of the leading assembly programs for data sets that include paired end data from the Roche 454 line of sequencing machines.

Address of the bookmark: http://www.jcvi.org/cms/research/projects/cabog/overview/

The data are available using NCBI accession IDs: BioProject: (PRJNA483067), assembly: [RBJD00000000] and sequence data (SRP155659).

Additional Resources

• Interactive map showcasing global initiatives underway to generate reference-quality human genome assemblies for diverse populations
• BioReport Podcast on the value of ethnic-specific reference genomes
• Nature Reviews Genetics paper from NHGRI: Prioritizing diversity in human genomics research
• Article in The Journal of Precision Medicine: “Minority Report – Ethnic Diversity and the Real Promise for Precision Medicine”
• Article in Bio-IT World: “Genomic Data Standards Are a Necessity”
• NHGRI Project Award: High Quality Human and Non-Human Primate Genome Assemblies

More details are available on the PacBio website:

• Blog post: Data Release: Highest-Quality, Most Contiguous Individual Human Genome Assembly to Date
• Blog post: For Reference-Grade Human Genome Assemblies, SMRT Sequencing Yields Optimal Results
• Webinar:  Assembling High-Quality Human Reference Genomes for Global Populations
• FALCON-Phase press release and article preprint
• PacBio research focus webpage about Human Population Genetics

 Ref: https://stockguru.com/2018/10/08/pacific-biosciences-releases-highest-quality-most-contiguous-individual-human-genome-assembly-to-date/

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