Cycles enumeration (aka Bubbles) as part of de novo de bruijn graphs assembly using colours can be unpractical for large error prone genomes which makes the assembly process produce an excessive number of false positive cycles.  Our solution is to search the graph in multicores shared memory parallel mode using graph decomposition then use filtering method to generate good quality SNPs.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.06700

https://github.com/redayounsi/2KP2P

/2kp2omp/bin/main_2kp2_K63_C2 -i fastq_files.txt -o fungus_bub.fasta -r stat_fungus.txt -c cov_fungus_hash.txt -k 63 -h 20 -b 100 -g 600 -l 100 -f 16 -t 5.0 -x 1 -v 0 -p 1 -y 1 -u 1

 

Address of the bookmark: https://github.com/redayounsi/2KP2P

What are SNPs?
SNPs (pronounced "snips") are positions in the genome where individuals differ by a single nucleotide. For example:

Reference: ...A T G C A T G A...
Variant:     ...A T G T A T G A...

Here, the C in the reference genome has been replaced by a T in the variant.

SNPs occur roughly every 300–1,000 bases in the human genome, meaning there are millions of them scattered throughout our DNA. Most SNPs have no effect on health, but some are linked to disease susceptibility, drug response, and other traits.

Why Do We Analyze SNPs?
1. Medical Genetics

Identify disease-associated variants (e.g., BRCA1/2 in breast cancer).

Predict drug response (pharmacogenomics).

Enable precision medicine by tailoring treatments.

2. Population Genetics & Ancestry

Trace human migration and ancestry.

Study genetic diversity within and between populations.

3. Agriculture & Animal Breeding

Select for desirable traits (drought resistance, yield, disease resistance).

Improve breeding efficiency in livestock.

4. Evolutionary Biology

Track natural selection.

Study adaptation in wild populations.

How is SNP Analysis Performed?
SNP analysis can be broadly divided into three steps:

SNP Detection
Genotyping arrays: Chips that test hundreds of thousands of known SNP positions simultaneously. Fast and affordable, widely used in consumer ancestry testing.

Whole-genome or whole-exome sequencing: Can detect known and novel SNPs across the genome.

Targeted sequencing or PCR: For focused analysis of specific regions.

Variant Calling
Sequencing data is aligned to a reference genome. Bioinformatics tools (e.g., GATK, bcftools) identify positions where the sequenced sample differs from the reference.

Annotation and Interpretation
Tools (e.g., SnpEff, VEP) predict the functional impact of SNPs.

Are the SNPs in coding regions? Do they cause amino acid changes? Are they known to be pathogenic?

Databases like dbSNP, ClinVar, and GWAS Catalog provide information on known associations.

Common Tools for SNP Analysis
Alignment: BWA, Bowtie2

Variant Calling: GATK, FreeBayes

Visualization: IGV, UCSC Genome Browser

Annotation: SnpEff, VEP

Statistical Analysis: PLINK, SNPTEST

Challenges in SNP Analysis
False positives/negatives: Sequencing errors, alignment issues.

Population stratification: Confounding in association studies.

Interpretation: Many SNPs have unknown or complex effects.

Researchers address these with rigorous quality control, large datasets, and increasingly sophisticated statistical models.

The Future of SNP Analysis
With advances in sequencing technology and AI-driven analysis, SNP studies are expanding:

Polygenic risk scores predict disease risk based on thousands of SNPs.

Large-scale biobanks (e.g., UK Biobank, All of Us) enable powerful genome-wide association studies (GWAS).

CRISPR and functional assays help validate SNP effects in the lab.

SNP analysis is at the heart of the genomic revolution, promising insights into biology, health, and evolution at unprecedented scale.

Conclusion
From diagnosing rare diseases to designing better crops, SNP analysis is a foundational tool in modern science. As our ability to sequence and interpret genomes improves, so will our understanding of these tiny—but mighty—variations in DNA.

Address of the bookmark: https://training.galaxyproject.org/training-material/topics/variant-analysis/tutorials/non-dip/tutorial.html

Study of 10 tools on five datasets that such a comparative evaluation of these tools is hindered by two types of circularity: they arise due to (1) the same variants or (2) different variants from the same protein occurring both in the datasets used for training and for evaluation of these tools, which may lead to overly optimistic results. Comparative evaluations of predictors that do not address these types of circularity may erroneously conclude that circularity confounded tools are most accurate among all tools, and may even outperform optimized combinations of tools.

Following tools are useful for mis sense muation detection ... 

PolyPhen‐2 (PP2)
“Predicts possible impact of an amino acid substitution on the structure and function of a human protein using straightforward physical and comparative considerations”

MutationTaster‐2 (MT2)
“Evaluation of the disease‐causing potential of DNA sequence alterations”

MutationAssessor (MASS)
“Predicts the functional impact of amino acid substitutions in proteins, such as mutations discovered in cancer or missense polymorphisms”

LRT
“Identify a subset of deleterious mutations that disrupt highly conserved amino acids within protein‐coding sequences, which are likely to be unconditionally deleterious”

SIFT
“Predicts whether an amino acid substitution affects protein function”

GERP++
“Identifies constrained elements in multiple alignments by quantifying substitution deficits. These deficits represent substitutions that would have occurred if the element were neutral DNA, but did not occur because the element has been under functional constraint. We refer to these deficits as “rejected substitutions.” Rejected substitutions are a natural measure of constraint that reflects the strength of past purifying selection on the element”

phyloP
“Compute conservation or acceleration P values based on an alignment and a model of neutral evolution”

FatHMM unweighted (FatHMM‐U)
Predicts “functional consequences of both coding variants, that is, nonsynonymous single‐nucleotide variants, and noncoding variants”

FatHMM weighted (FatHMM‐W)
Predicts “functional consequences of both coding variants, that is, nonsynonymous single‐nucleotide variants, and noncoding variants” and its weighting scheme attributes higher tolerance scores to SNVs in proteins, related proteins, or domains that already include a high fraction of pathogenic variantsh

Combined Annotation Dependent Depletion (CADD)
“CADD is a tool for scoring the deleteriousness of single‐nucleotide variants as well as insertion/deletions variants in the human genome”

Address of the bookmark: https://github.com/Nextomics/NextSV

https://genome.sph.umich.edu/wiki/Vt

https://github.com/atks/vt

Address of the bookmark: https://genome.sph.umich.edu/wiki/Vt

http://www.mdpi.com/2073-4425/8/10/248

Address of the bookmark: http://alienness.sophia.inra.fr/cgi/index.cgi

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

https://academic.oup.com/nar/advance-article/doi/10.1093/nar/gkae679/7730539?login=true

Address of the bookmark: https://github.com/Zhenlisme/heliano/