Requirements
Doctoral degree in Bioinformatics, Computational Biology, (Bio)physics/-mathematics, Biochemistry/Biology or similar with strong quantitative and numeric focus
Ability to numerically process complex and large data sets
Good programming skills (R/Bioconductor and/or Python preferred, Linux is a plus)
Experience in analyzing next-generation sequencing data sets using network biology
Scientific publication record in applied bioinformatics
Familiarity with single cell NGS analyses and other –omics techniques is a plus, but not essential

• Filters SNVs from any variant caller to remove false positives
• Calculates metrics based on BAM files and provides filtering not possible with other tools
• Fully user-configurable filtering (including which filters to use and their thresholds)
• Option to use filters identical to ICGC recommendations

FiNGS provides researchers with a tool to reproducibly filter somatic variants that is simple to both deploy and use, with filters and thresholds that are fully configurable by the user. It ingests and emits standard variant call format (VCF) files and will slot into existing sequencing pipelines. It allows users to develop and implement their own filtering strategies and simple sharing of these with others.

FiNGS reliably improves upon the precision of default variant caller outputs and performs better than other tools designed for the same task.

Address of the bookmark: https://github.com/cpwardell/FiNGS

The "Ifs" of NGS QC and Trimming

1. Ensures Data Integrity
   If you want to minimize errors in downstream analyses, QC and trimming remove low-quality reads and bases, ensuring high-confidence data. This step is essential for reliable variant calling, assembly, and other applications.

2. Removes Contaminants
   If adapter sequences or contaminants are present in the raw reads, trimming can eliminate them. This prevents issues like misalignment or incorrect biological interpretations, ensuring cleaner data for analysis.

3. Improves Mapping and Assembly
   If your goal is better alignment to a reference genome or improved de novo assembly, trimming low-quality bases and adapters is critical. High-quality reads map more efficiently and generate more accurate assemblies.

4. Reduces Computational Load
   If you want to save computational resources, trimming reduces the dataset size, which speeds up processing and analysis. Clean datasets mean less computational time spent on processing low-quality data.

5. Prepares for Standardized Analyses
   If your project involves multiple datasets, QC and trimming ensure uniformity across them. This standardization makes comparisons valid and reproducible, particularly in large collaborative studies.

The "Buts" of NGS QC and Trimming

1. Risk of Over-Trimming
   But excessive trimming can lead to the loss of informative sequences, reducing read depth and potentially discarding biologically relevant data. This is especially critical in studies with limited sequencing depth.

2. Bias Introduction
   But trimming algorithms might introduce biases, especially if they inadvertently remove sequences with specific biological patterns. This can skew results and compromise biological insights.

3. Loss of Context in Paired-End Reads
   But trimming one read in a pair more than the other can lead to loss of pairing information. This complicates downstream analyses that rely on paired-end data, such as structural variant detection.

4. Time and Resource Intensive
   But running QC and trimming for large datasets can be computationally expensive and time-consuming. As sequencing depth increases, preprocessing becomes a bottleneck in the analysis pipeline.

5. Variable Standards
   But the criteria for trimming (e.g., quality threshold, minimum read length) can vary between tools and datasets. This variability may affect reproducibility and comparability of results across studies.

Balancing the "Ifs" and "Buts"

To maximize the benefits of QC and trimming while mitigating the challenges, consider the following best practices:

• Use QC Tools Wisely: Start with tools like FastQC to identify quality issues in your raw data. Visualizing quality metrics helps tailor your trimming parameters.

• Choose Reliable Trimming Tools: Tools like Trimmomatic, Cutadapt, and BBduk offer adaptive and customizable trimming options. Select one that aligns with your dataset and project goals.

• Set Reasonable Parameters: Avoid over-trimming by setting quality thresholds and minimum read lengths that balance data retention and quality improvement.

• Test Downstream Effects: Validate the impact of QC and trimming on downstream analyses, such as alignment efficiency, variant calling accuracy, or assembly quality.

• Document Your Workflow: Maintain detailed records of the parameters and tools used for QC and trimming. This ensures reproducibility and enables better troubleshooting.

Conclusion

NGS quality control and trimming are essential steps to ensure reliable and accurate data for analysis. While the "ifs" highlight the clear benefits of these steps, the "buts" remind us of the potential pitfalls. By adopting best practices and carefully balancing these considerations, you can optimize your preprocessing workflow and unlock the full potential of your sequencing data.

Quickstart

http://nanopolish.readthedocs.io/en/latest/quickstart_consensus.html

Algorithms

http://simpsonlab.github.io/2017/06/30/nanopolish-v0.7.0/

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

We accomplish this by first calculating genotype likelihoods for every site. For a given site in a diploid genome, there are 10 possible genotypes (AA, AC, AG, AT, CC, CG, CT, GG, GT, TT). Referee takes as input the genotype likelihoods calculated for all 10 genotypes given the called reference base at each position.

Referee is a program to calculate a quality score for every position in a genome assembly. This allows for easy filtering of low quality sites for any downstream analysis.

https://github.com/gwct/referee

Address of the bookmark: https://gwct.github.io/referee/#

Computational methods used by the Shasta assembler include:

• Using a run-length representation of the read sequence. This makes the assembly process more resilient to errors in homopolymer repeat counts, which are the most common type of errors in Oxford Nanopore reads.
• Using in some phases of the computation a representation of the read sequence based on markers, a fixed subset of short k-mers (k ≈ 10).

More at https://chanzuckerberg.github.io/shasta/index.html

Address of the bookmark: https://github.com/chanzuckerberg/shasta

More at https://github.com/ekg/mutatrix

./mutatrix -S sample -P test/ -p 2 -n 10 reference.fasta

Address of the bookmark: https://github.com/ekg/mutatrix

Like other indel callers, Scalpel works by performing de novo assembly of regions of interest, so that misalignment to the reference genome cannot obscure the presence of an insertion or deletion. Scalpel's innovation is to repeatedly check its assembly before comparing to the reference genome, to account for simple sequence repeats that are a regular source of error in indel calling. When Scalpel assembles an exon, it collects reads that map to that exon (including partial matches), splits them into k-mers, and creates a de Bruijn graph to span the exon; however, if it detects repeats in the map, it iteratively increases the size of the k-mers by one base until the repeats are eliminated. This ensures that the final assembly of the exon is highly accurate while minimizing compute time.

The Cold Spring Harbor team's validation of Scalpel, published over the weekend in Nature Methods, compares Scalpel's performance on a live whole exome against HaplotypeCaller and SOAPindel. The donor is an individual with serious neurological disorders, which may be linked to a high incidence of indels. One thousand indels from this individual's exome, called by one or more of the informatics pipelines, were selected for focused resequencing. This resequencing revealed a 77% true positive rate for Scalpel calls, dramatically better than the rates for either of the competing tools; Scalpel performed especially well with indels longer than five base pairs, a traditional weak point for indel callers.

Finally, the authors demonstrate Scalpel's use on a large set of genetic data from nearly 600 families who donated samples to the Simons Simplex Collection, a project of the Simons Foundation Autism Research Initiative. Scalpel found a very high enrichment for indels in children affected by autism, compared with their unaffected siblings, a pattern that persisted even after excluding common variants.

Address of the bookmark: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v517/n7536/full/nature13907.html

https://www.nature.com/articles/nm.3975

Address of the bookmark: https://www.nature.com/articles/nm.3975