Run Maq Now

Follow these steps to try Maq. All you need is a reference sequence file in the FASTA format.

1. Prepare a reference sequence (ref.fasta). Better a bacterial genome.
2. Download maq, maq-data and maqview at the download page.
3. Copy maq, maq.pl and maq_eval.pl to the $PATH or to the same directory.
4. Simulate diploid reference and read sequences, map reads, call variants and evaluate the results in one go:

   maq.pl demo ref.fasta calib-30.dat
   

   where calib-30.dat is contained in maq-data.
5. View the alignment:

   cd maqdemo/easyrun;
   maqindex -i -c consensus.cns all.map;
   maqview -c consensus.cns all.map

Even for advanced maq users, running `maq.pl demo' is recommended. You may find something helpful.

Address of the bookmark: http://maq.sourceforge.net

Address of the bookmark: http://bioinformatics.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/02/12/bioinformatics.btu078.full.pdf

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

Dan Kortschak, Bioinformatics Group, School of Molecular and Biomedical Science ,The University of Adelaide

Address of the bookmark: http://talks.biogo.googlecode.com/git/illumination/illumination.pdf

QuorUM is distributed as an independent software package and as a module of the MaSuRCA assembly software. Both are available under the GPL open source license at http://www.genome.umd.edu.

Address of the bookmark: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0130821

Here is how I use the blasr to align PacBio reads to the contigs (target.fasta). The “target.fasta.sa” is the suffix array from “target.fasta” generated by sawriter.

blasr query.fa ./target.fasta -sa ./target.fasta.sa -bestn 40 -maxScore -500 -m 4 -nproc 24 -out target.m4 -maxLCPLength 15

the output format option “-m 4″ generate the alignment coordinate. Not fully documented, but I can explain that to you. 

I use a 24 cores / 48G ram server for the alignment. It took about 2 to 3 hours aligning 3G PacBio Reads to 10^6 sequences of short read contigs with a mean 3.5kbp length.

Address of the bookmark: http://bix.ucsd.edu/projects/blasr/

Address of the bookmark: https://github.com/Megagenomics/FastProNGS

Calculate how much sequencing you need to hit a target depth of coverage (or vice versa).

Instructions: set the read length/configuration and genome size, then select what you want to calculate.

Written by Stephen Turner, based on the Lander-Waterman formula, inspired by a similar calculator written by James Hadfield. Coverage is calculated as C=LN/G and reads as N=CG/L where C = Coverage (X),L = Read length (bp), G = Haploid genome size (bp), and N = Number of reads. Source code on GitHub.

Address of the bookmark: http://apps.bioconnector.virginia.edu/covcalc/

Note that since the original publication, we have made significant changes to OPERA (v1.0 onwards) including refinements to its basic algorithm (to reduce local errors, improve efficiency etc.) and incorporated features that are important for scaffolding large genomes (multi-library support, better repeat-handling etc.), in addition to other scalability and usability improvements (bam and gzip support, smaller memory footprint). We therefore encourage you to download and use our latest version: OPERA-LG. In our benchmarks, it has significantly improved corrected N50 and reduced the number of scaffolding errors. Furthermore, our latest release contains the wrapper script OPERA-long-read that enables scaffolding with long-reads from third-generation sequencing technologies (PacBio or Oxford Nanopore). The manuscript describing the new features and algorithms is available at Genome Biology. We look forward to getting your feedback to improve it further.

Address of the bookmark: https://sourceforge.net/p/operasf/wiki/The%20OPERA%20wiki/

Find the detail of the reads repeats:

fq2fa ONT_A.fastq ONT_A.fasta 

minimap2 -xava-ont ONT_A.fasta ONT_A.fasta -t10 -X > AONT.paf 

awk '{if($1==$6){print}}' AONT.paf > AONTself.paf 

awk '$5=="-"' AONTself.paf | awk '{print $1}'| sort|uniq > invertedrepeat.list

Generated a few palindrome and repeats plots (highlighting only repeats largest than 10, 20 and 30 kb)

minidot -f 5 -m 30000 AONTself.paf > AONTself30000.eps 
sed 's/_template_pass_FAH31515//' AONTself30000.eps > AONTself30000final.eps 

minidot -f 5 -m 20000 AONTself.paf > AONTself20000.eps 
sed 's/_template_pass_FAH31515//' AONTself20000.eps > AONTself20000final.eps 

minidot -f 5 -m 10000 AONTself.paf > AONTself10000.eps 
sed 's/_template_pass_FAH31515//' AONTself10000.eps > AONTself10000final.eps 

Assemble with miniasm:

miniasm -f ONT_A.fasta AONT.paf > AONT.gfa 

grep '^S' AONT.gfa |awk '{print ">"$2"\n"$3}' > AONT_miniasm.fasta 

minimap2 -xasm10 AONT_miniasm.fasta AONT_miniasm.fasta -t1 -X > AONT_miniasm.paf 

awk '{if($1==$6){print}}' AONT_miniasm.paf > AONT_miniasm_self.paf 

minidot -f 5 -m 10000 AONT_miniasm_self.paf > AONT_miniasm_self10000.eps 

Njoy the assembly !