With advances in Cancer Genomics, Mutation Annotation Format (MAF) is being widley accepted and used to store variants detected. The Cancer Genome Atlas Project has seqenced over 30 different cancers with sample size of each cancer type being over 200. The resulting data consisting of genetic variants is stored in the form of Mutation Annotation Format. This package attempts to summarize, analyze, annotate and visualize MAF files in an efficient manner either from TCGA sources or any in-house studies as long as the data is in MAF format. Maftools can also handle ICGC Simple Somatic Mutation format.

maftools is on bioRxiv

Please cite the below if you find this tool useful for you.

Mayakonda, A. and H.P. Koeffler, Maftools: Efficient analysis, visualization and summarization of MAF files from large-scale cohort based cancer studies. bioRxiv, 2016. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/052662

Address of the bookmark: https://github.com/PoisonAlien/maftools

Prokka – Standalone command line tool, takes just a few minutes per genome. This is the best way to get good quality annotation in a flash, which is particularly useful if you have loads of genomes or need to annotate a pangenome or metagenome. Note however that the quality of functional information is not as good as RAST, and you will need several extra steps if you want to do functional profiling and pathway analysis of your genome(s)… which is in-built in RAST.

NCBI Prokaryotic Genome Annotation Pipeline is designed to annotate bacterial and archaeal genomes (chromosomes and plasmids).

Genome annotation is a multi-level process that includes prediction of protein-coding genes, as well as other functional genome units such as structural RNAs, tRNAs, small RNAs, pseudogenes, control regions, direct and inverted repeats, insertion sequences, transposons and other mobile elements.

PGAP: NCBI has developed an automatic prokaryotic genome annotation pipeline that combines ab initio gene prediction algorithms with homology based methods. The first version of NCBI Prokaryotic Genome Automatic Annotation Pipeline (PGAAP; see Pubmed Article) developed in 2005 has been replaced with an upgraded version that is capable of processing a larger data volume.  NCBI's annotation pipeline depends on several internal databases and is not currently available for download or use outside of the NCBI environment.

BEACON (automated tool for Bacterial GEnome Annotation ComparisON), a fast tool for an automated and a systematic comparison of different annotations of single genomes. The extended annotation assigns putative functions to many genes with unknown functions. BEACON is available under GNU General Public License version 3.0 and is accessible at: http://www.cbrc.kaust.edu.sa/BEACON/.

BlastKOLA: Assigns K numbers to the user's sequence data by BLAST searches, respectively, against a nonredundant set of KEGG GENES. KOALA (KEGG Orthology And Links Annotation) is KEGG's internal annotation tool for K number assignment of KEGG GENES using SSEARCH computation. Annotate Sequence in KEGG Mapper and Pathogen Checker in KEGG Pathogen are special interfaces to this server and can be executed in an interactive mode. BlastKOALA is suitable for annotating fully sequenced genomes.

PAGIT: Provides a toolkit for improving the quality of genome assemblies created via an assembly software. PAGIT compiled four tools: (i) ABACAS which classifies and orientates contigs and estimates the sizes of gaps between them; (ii) IMAGE uses paired-end reads to extend contigs and close gaps within the scaffolds; (iii) ICORN for identifying and correcting small errors in consensus sequences and; (iv) RATT for help annotation. The software was mainly created to analyze parasite genomes of up to about 300 Mb.

MAKER: A portable and easily configurable genome annotation pipeline. MAKER allows smaller eukaryotic and prokaryotic genome projects to independently annotate their genomes and to create genome databases. It identifies repeats, aligns ESTs and proteins to a genome, produces ab-initio gene predictions and automatically synthesizes these data into gene annotations having evidence-based quality values. MAKER's inputs are minimal and its ouputs can be directly loaded into a Generic Model Organism Database (GMOD). They can also be viewed in the Apollo genome browser; this feature of MAKER provides an easy means to annotate, view and edit individual contigs and BACs without the overhead of a database. MAKER is available for download and can be tested online via the MAKER Web Annotation Service (MWAS).

MyPro is a software pipeline for high-quality prokaryotic genome assembly and annotation. It was validated on 18 oral streptococcal strains to produce submission-ready, annotated draft genomes. MyPro installed as a virtual machine and supported by updated databases will enable biologists to perform quality prokaryotic genome assembly and annotation with ease.

Pockets Identification

CASTp

Pocket-Finder

PocketPicker

##################################################
[Mon May 7 11:29:18 2018] Reduction...
#file name genome size contigs heterozygous size [%] heterozygous contigs [%] identity [%] possible joins homozygous size [%] homozygous contigs [%]
/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/matplotlib/font_manager.py:273: UserWarning: Matplotlib is building the font cache using fc-list. This may take a moment.
warnings.warn('Matplotlib is building the font cache using fc-list. This may take a moment.')
test/run1/contigs.fa 163897 245 66377 40.50 221 90.20 94.854 0 97520 59.50 24 9.80

##################################################
[Mon May 7 11:29:29 2018] Estimating parameters of libraries...
Aligning 19504 mates per library...
Insert size statistics Mates orientation stats
FastQ files read length median mean stdev FF FR RF RR
test/5000_1.fq.gz test/5000_2.fq.gz 50 4998 4990.20 721.47 0 4674 0 0
test/600_1.fq.gz test/600_2.fq.gz 100 599 598.63 47.68 0 10000 0 0

##################################################
[Mon May 7 11:29:29 2018] Scaffolding...
iteration 1.1: test/run1/contigs.reduced.fa 24 97520 39.355 17 94157 7321 2195 0 29603
19505 pairs. 17302 passed filtering [88.71%]. 1627 in different contigs [8.34%].
1526 pairs. 558 in different contigs [36.57%].
iteration 1.2: test/run1/_sspace.1.1.fa 3 97626 39.344 3 97626 87536 6063 821 87536
19505 pairs. 17607 passed filtering [90.27%]. 182 in different contigs [0.93%].
1077 pairs. 124 in different contigs [11.51%].
iteration 2.1: test/run1/_sspace.1.2.fa 3 97626 39.344 3 97626 87536 6063 821 87536
19505 pairs. 15112 passed filtering [77.48%]. 1295 in different contigs [6.64%].
3417 pairs. 396 in different contigs [11.59%].
iteration 2.2: test/run1/_sspace.2.1.fa 1 99133 39.344 1 99133 99133 99133 2328 99133
19505 pairs. 15152 passed filtering [77.68%]. 0 in different contigs [0.00%].
3398 pairs. 0 in different contigs [0.00%].

##################################################
[Mon May 7 11:29:34 2018] Gap closing...
iteration 1.1: test/run1/scaffolds.fa 1 99133 39.344 1 99133 99133 99133 2328 99133

##################################################
[Mon May 7 11:29:35 2018] Final reduction...
#file name genome size contigs heterozygous size [%] heterozygous contigs [%] identity [%] possible joins homozygous size [%] homozygous contigs [%]
[WARNING] Nothing reduced!
test/run1/scaffolds.filled.fa 99390 1 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.000 0 99390 100.00 1 100.00

##################################################
[Mon May 7 11:29:35 2018] Reporting statistics...
#fname contigs bases GC [%] contigs >1kb bases in contigs >1kb N50 N90 Ns longest
test/contigs.fa 245 163897 40.298 24 117391 3975 233 0 29603
test/run1/contigs.fa 245 163897 40.298 24 117391 3975 233 0 29603
test/run1/contigs.reduced.fa 24 97520 39.355 17 94157 7321 2195 0 29603
test/run1/_sspace.1.1.fa 3 97626 39.344 3 97626 87536 6063 821 87536
test/run1/_sspace.1.2.fa 3 97626 39.344 3 97626 87536 6063 821 87536
test/run1/_sspace.2.1.fa 1 99133 39.344 1 99133 99133 99133 2328 99133
test/run1/_sspace.2.2.fa 1 99133 39.344 1 99133 99133 99133 2328 99133
test/run1/scaffolds.fa 1 99133 39.344 1 99133 99133 99133 2328 99133
test/run1/_gapcloser.1.1.fa 1 99390 39.689 1 99390 99390 99390 2 99390
test/run1/scaffolds.filled.fa 1 99390 39.689 1 99390 99390 99390 2 99390
test/run1/scaffolds.reduced.fa 1 99390 39.689 1 99390 99390 99390 2 99390

##################################################
[Mon May 7 11:29:35 2018] Cleaning-up...
#Time elapsed: 0:00:17.376924

The Mix algorithm, approach and results were published in BMC bioinformatics : http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/14/S15/S16.

Address of the bookmark: https://github.com/cbib/MIX

Address of the bookmark: https://github.com/knausb/vcfR

Compare structural and functional annotations of proteins between sequenced genomes.

1. MISA: MISA (MIcroSAtellite) is a web-based tool that can identify SSRs in DNA sequences. It can be used to analyze nucleotide sequences from various organisms and can identify perfect, compound, and imperfect SSRs.

2. SSR Locator: SSR Locator is a web-based tool that identifies SSRs in both DNA and RNA sequences. It can identify perfect, compound, and imperfect SSRs, and can also filter out low complexity regions.

3. SciRoKo: SciRoKo is a software tool that can identify SSRs in DNA sequences. It can be used to analyze genomic and transcriptomic sequences from various organisms and can identify perfect, compound, and imperfect SSRs.

4. Primer3: Primer3 is a web-based tool that designs PCR primers for SSRs. It can design primers for perfect and imperfect SSRs, and can be used to design primers for SSRs in various organisms.

5. QDD: QDD (Quick Detection of Duplication) is a software tool that can identify SSRs in DNA sequences and can also identify duplicate loci. It can be used to analyze genomic and transcriptomic sequences from various organisms.

These are just a few examples of the many bioinformatics tools available for exploring SSRs. Depending on your specific needs and research questions, you may find that other tools are more appropriate for your analysis.

What is Bacterial Comparative Genomics?

Comparative genomics involves the systematic comparison of genomes across different bacterial species or strains. This approach allows scientists to:

• Identify conserved and unique genes.

• Explore genetic determinants of pathogenicity.

• Understand bacterial evolution and phylogenetics.

• Investigate horizontal gene transfer and its role in antibiotic resistance.

Bioinformatics is central to these analyses, enabling the processing and interpretation of large-scale genomic data.

Key Steps in Bacterial Comparative Genomics

1. Genome Sequencing and Assembly: The process begins with obtaining high-quality bacterial genome sequences. Advances in next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies have made it faster and more affordable to sequence bacterial genomes. Tools such as SPAdes and Velvet are commonly used for genome assembly.

2. Genome Annotation: Annotating a genome involves identifying genes, regulatory elements, and other genomic features. Automated tools like Prokka and RAST provide functional annotations, allowing researchers to predict the roles of genes and proteins.

3. Genome Alignment: Aligning genomes is crucial for identifying conserved regions, single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), and structural variations. Tools like Mauve and progressiveMauve are commonly employed for whole-genome alignments.

4. Comparative Analyses:

   • Core and Pan-genome Analysis: The core genome consists of genes shared across all strains of a species, while the pan-genome includes all genes found in any strain. Software like Roary and BPGA can perform core and pan-genome analyses.

   • Phylogenetic Analysis: Comparative genomics often involves reconstructing evolutionary relationships. Tools such as MEGA and IQ-TREE facilitate phylogenetic tree construction based on genomic data.

   • Functional Enrichment Analysis: To understand the biological significance of unique or shared genes, functional enrichment analysis using databases like GO (Gene Ontology) and KEGG is essential.

Here are some additional bioinformatics tools that can aid bacterial comparative genomics:

• OrthoFinder: For accurate ortholog identification across multiple genomes.

• PanOCT: Specifically designed for pan-genome clustering and annotation.

• FASTANI: A tool for calculating Average Nucleotide Identity (ANI) for microbial genome comparisons.

• CIRCOS: For visually comparing genomic data through circular genome plots.

• Galaxy Platform: A user-friendly web-based platform offering numerous genomic analysis tools.

• BLAST: Essential for sequence alignment and similarity searches.

• PhyloSift: Focused on phylogenetic analysis of microbial genomes using marker genes.

These tools, in combination with the methods discussed, provide a robust framework for conducting comprehensive comparative genomic studies.

Applications of Bacterial Comparative Genomics

1. Understanding Pathogenicity: Comparative genomics helps identify virulence factors that distinguish pathogenic strains from non-pathogenic relatives. For instance, comparing genomes of Escherichia coli strains has revealed key genetic determinants of pathogenicity in enterohemorrhagic strains.

2. Antibiotic Resistance Research: The spread of antibiotic resistance genes through horizontal gene transfer is a major global concern. Comparative analyses can trace the origins and dissemination of resistance genes, aiding in the development of countermeasures.

3. Microbial Ecology and Evolution: By studying genomic variations, researchers can understand how bacteria adapt to different environments. This is particularly relevant for extremophiles and symbiotic bacteria.

4. Vaccine Development: Identifying conserved antigens across pathogenic strains is critical for vaccine design. Comparative genomics has been instrumental in developing vaccines against pathogens like Neisseria meningitidis.

5. Biotechnology Applications: Comparative studies can uncover unique metabolic pathways in bacteria, paving the way for applications in bioremediation, synthetic biology, and industrial microbiology.

Challenges in Bacterial Comparative Genomics

While the field has made significant strides, several challenges remain:

• Data Overload: The rapid growth of sequencing data requires robust computational infrastructure and efficient algorithms.

• Genome Plasticity: High rates of horizontal gene transfer and genome rearrangements in bacteria complicate comparative analyses.

• Annotation Accuracy: Automated annotation tools are not infallible, and manual curation is often needed for high-confidence results.

• Interpreting Non-Coding Regions: Understanding the functional significance of non-coding genomic regions remains a challenge.

Future Directions

The integration of bacterial comparative genomics with other ‘omics’ approaches—such as transcriptomics, proteomics, and metabolomics—promises a more comprehensive understanding of bacterial biology. Additionally, advancements in machine learning and artificial intelligence are likely to further enhance bioinformatics analyses, enabling the prediction of complex phenotypes from genomic data.

Conclusion

Bacterial comparative genomics, driven by bioinformatics, continues to unravel the complexities of bacterial life. From combating antibiotic resistance to uncovering the secrets of microbial evolution, this interdisciplinary field holds immense potential for addressing pressing challenges in microbiology and beyond. As technology advances, so too will our ability to harness the power of comparative genomics for scientific and societal benefit.

http://elements.eaglegenomics.com/