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://vina.scripps.edu/

Address of the bookmark: http://vina.scripps.edu/

https://github.com/clemgoub/dnaPipeTE/wiki/dnaPipeTE-WIKI-home

Address of the bookmark: https://github.com/clemgoub/dnaPipeTE

Webinar on 'An integrated RNA and DNA approach to unravel genetic regulation in cancer'

Abstract

Whole exome DNA sequencing (WES) or whole genome DNA sequencing (WGS) allows detection of mutations and polymorphisms in all exonic and genomic regions, respectively, while messenger RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq) enables quantitative analysis of gene expression. Mutations in the genome result in diverse transcriptional aberrations that can be missed in a stand-alone WES/WGS analysis. An integration of DNA variant analysis and RNA-Seq analysis enables one to investigate the consequences of genomic changes in the RNA transcripts including germline and somatic changes, imprinting, RNA editing and allele specific expression (ASE). In this webinar, we will demonstrate this integrated approach using Strand NGS to identify high confidence mutations, RNA editing events and ASE in cancer.

Webinar Details

Register here: http://www.strand-ngs.com/webinar_registration

About Speaker:

Dr. Veena Hedatale, has a PhD in Plant Genetics from The Radboud University, Netherlands focused on meiosis and recombination. Her prior academic experience at Cornell University was on genetic mapping and gene transformation in Rice. She has worked with Monsanto, and contributed to data mining, database development as well as gene/promoter/pathway discovery for traits related to yield and stress in crop species. At Strand, Veena has worked on Pharmacogenomic analysis of targets and Gene family analysis projects. Currently, she is part of the Strand NGS Application Science team and is involved in the analysis of next generation sequencing data.

Please feel free to contact us 24/5, for availing free online training or if you have any questions.

Address of the bookmark: http://master.bioconductor.org/packages/release/workflows/vignettes/rnaseqGene/inst/doc/rnaseqGene.html

Introductory Articles/ppt/sources:

http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pcbi.1002375

http://bioinformatics.mdanderson.org/MicroarrayCourse/Lectures09/Pathway%20Analysis.pdf

http://gettinggeneticsdone.blogspot.de/2012/03/pathway-analysis-for-high-throughput.html

http://davetang.org/muse/tag/pathway/

https://www.biostars.org/p/42219/

http://bioinformatics.ca//files/public/Pathways_2014_Module4_v2.pdf

http://bioinformatics.ca//files/public/Pathways_2014_Module2.pdf

Impotant Database and Tools:

GeneMANIA, Cytoscape, IPA and Metacore (Commerical ), Pathway Commons, Reactome ,Panther, BioCyc, WikiPathways, Pathvisio, KEGG, NCI, Stringdb, Amigo, WebGestalt ,ConsensusPathDB ,GSEA,Blast2go

Popular R based tools:

Reactome.db, ReactomePA, ClusterProfiler, Gage, SPIA, topGO, Pathview,DOSE,GOStat

More:

http://www.bioconductor.org/help/search/index.html?q=Enrichment+analysis+

by Dr. Pandurang Kolekar, Bioinformatics Engineer, Strand Life Sciences

Abstract:

Unique Molecular Identifiers (UMIs) are short random nucleotide sequences that are increasingly being used in high-throughput sequencing experiments. In this webinar, we will highlight the UMI-friendly features of Strand NGS v3.1 including support for handling well known and customised UMI libraries, QC metrics, consensus alignment, UMI-based family size filters for read list, genome browser enabled with UMI-specific features and filters, UMI-aware variant calling parameters, and exporting UMI-tagged aligned samples. These all features together empower users to harness the potential of UMI-tagged NGS data for deeper insights. A case study demonstrating application of these UMI-based features in Strand NGS for low frequency variant calling in cfDNA sample will be presented.

UMI-tagged NGS libraries allow, ultra-sensitive detection of low frequency variants from liquid biopsy samples using DNA-Seq and accurate quantification of transcript-level expression using RNA-Seq. The recent release of Strand NGS v3.1, is equipped with the necessary features to efficiently analyse UMI-tagged NGS data helping researchers and labs involved in rare variant calling like in cfDNA based cancer diagnostics, and accurate transcript quantification with RNA-Seq.

Webinar Details:

Session 1: 13 Dec 2017, 2:30 PM IST
Session 2: 13 Dec 2017, 9:30 PM IST

Register here: http://www.strand-ngs.com/webinar_registration

Why Normalize RNA-Seq Data?

Normalization is a crucial step in RNA-Seq analysis for the following reasons:

• Sequencing depth: Different RNA-Seq experiments produce varying numbers of reads, making direct comparisons between samples misleading.

• Gene length: Longer genes inherently generate more reads, irrespective of their actual expression level.

• Bias reduction: Normalization mitigates technical biases, enabling meaningful biological interpretation.

TPM (Transcripts Per Million)

TPM measures the proportion of reads mapped to a transcript, normalized by transcript length and sequencing depth. It is calculated as:

Key Features:

1. Proportionality: TPM values sum to 1,000,000 across all transcripts in a sample, making it easier to compare between samples.

2. Intuitive interpretation: TPM values directly represent the abundance of transcripts in a sample.

3. Preferred for comparisons: TPM facilitates between-sample comparisons better than FPKM.

FPKM (Fragments Per Kilobase Million)

FPKM normalizes read counts by transcript length and sequencing depth, but without enforcing proportionality like TPM. It is defined as:

Key Features:

1. Historical significance: FPKM was one of the first normalization methods used for RNA-Seq.

2. Single-end vs. paired-end: In paired-end sequencing, FPKM becomes RPKM (Reads Per Kilobase Million).

3. Limited utility: FPKM values are not as robust as TPM for cross-sample comparisons due to lack of proportionality.

CPM (Counts Per Million)

CPM normalizes raw read counts by sequencing depth, without considering gene length. It is expressed as:

Key Features:

1. Simplicity: CPM is straightforward and computationally less intensive.

2. Application: Suitable for non-length-dependent analyses, such as comparing total expression levels or differential expression analysis.

3. Gene length agnostic: CPM does not correct for gene length, making it less ideal for measuring expression levels.

When to Use Each Method

• TPM: Best for comparing expression levels between samples, especially when transcript length and sequencing depth vary.

• FPKM: Useful for historical consistency but generally replaced by TPM.

• CPM: Ideal for differential expression analysis when gene length normalization is unnecessary.

Conclusion

Choosing the right normalization method depends on the specific objectives of your RNA-Seq analysis. TPM’s proportionality and robustness make it the preferred choice for most applications, while CPM serves well for differential expression studies. Although FPKM paved the way for RNA-Seq normalization, it has largely been supplanted by TPM in modern workflows. Understanding these methods and their nuances ensures accurate and meaningful interpretations of RNA-Seq data.

References:

1. Li, B., & Dewey, C. N. (2011). RSEM: accurate transcript quantification from RNA-Seq data with or without a reference genome. BMC Bioinformatics.

2. Trapnell, C., et al. (2010). Transcript assembly and quantification by RNA-Seq reveals unannotated transcripts and isoform switching during cell differentiation. Nature Biotechnology.

3. Law, C. W., et al. (2014). voom: precision weights unlock linear model analysis tools for RNA-seq read counts. Genome Biology.