This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision Next revision Both sides next revision | ||
lecture_notes:04-19-2010 [2010/04/22 06:10] galt Added Galt's notes. |
lecture_notes:04-19-2010 [2010/04/24 02:26] cbrumbau Started to merge notes (incomplete), cleaned up formatting, filled in missing notes from presentation |
||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
====== Lecture Notes for April 19, 2010 ====== | ====== Lecture Notes for April 19, 2010 ====== | ||
- | Need to fill in any ** INCOMPLETE ** portions | ||
- | |||
- | {{:lecture_notes:20100419_banana_slug_seminar.ppt|Daniel's Powerpoint}} | ||
===== Presentation ===== | ===== Presentation ===== | ||
+ | ** {{:lecture_notes:20100419_banana_slug_seminar.ppt|Assembling and comparing genomes or transcriptomes using de Bruijn graphs}} ** \\ | ||
+ | Daniel Zerbino, Marcel Schulz, Wendy Lee, Ewan Birney and David Haussler | ||
+ | |||
==== Overview ==== | ==== Overview ==== | ||
* De Bruijn graphs | * De Bruijn graphs | ||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
* Practical considerations | * Practical considerations | ||
* Extensions to Velvet | * Extensions to Velvet | ||
+ | |||
==== De Bruijn graphs ==== | ==== De Bruijn graphs ==== | ||
- | Overlap-Layout-Consensus (traditional) | + | |
+ | === Overlap-Layout-Consensus (traditional) === | ||
* Traditional assemblers: Phrap, Arachne, Celera, etc. | * Traditional assemblers: Phrap, Arachne, Celera, etc. | ||
* Short reads: Edena | * Short reads: Edena | ||
- | * Generally more expensive computationally | + | * Generally more expensive computationally. |
- | * Overlaps only allow clean right-to-left and left-to-right overlaps | + | * Overlaps only allow clean right-to-left and left-to-right overlaps. |
* Transitivity | * Transitivity | ||
- | * Need to remove the redundant connections | + | * Need to remove the redundant connections. |
* Well studied graph theory problem | * Well studied graph theory problem | ||
- | Comparison of different assembly techniques | + | * Use whole-read alignments |
- | * Greedy hash table searches (~2007) | + | |
- | * Some examples: SSAKE, SHARCGS, VCAKE | + | === Quick OLC example === |
- | * ** INCOMPLETE ** | + | * Filter out all the reads that are identical or self-contained in another read. Only left-to-right, etc. are allowed. |
- | * De Bruijn graph assemblers (~2009) | + | * Compute all their overlaps. |
- | * Currently the most common for NGS: Euler, ALLPATHS, Velvet, ABySS, SOAPdenovo | + | * Get many transitive redundant connections. |
- | * ** INCOMPLETE ** | + | * Many algorithms are available for transitive reduction. |
- | * Can throw in reads of different lengths with no problems | + | * You obtain simplified paths through the reads. |
- | In Velvet: | + | * Get 4 big chunks of reads from the example. |
- | * Errors that are created in assembly create tips (spurs) that can be easily removed | + | * Hard to distinguish which reads belong to which copy of the repeat. |
- | * When finding bubbles, remap the branch with the lower coverage back onto the branch with the higher coverage (as not to lose the information) | + | * This is how contigs were first built. |
- | * When encountering loops, ** INCOMPLETE ** | + | * Have to compare all reads against each other. |
- | So what's the difference? | + | * Quadratic. This has become difficult. |
+ | * NGS reads are short, and overlaps between reads are short. They are getting a little longer with newer technology. | ||
+ | * OLC method uses all information in the read at least. | ||
+ | |||
+ | === Comparison of different assembly techniques === | ||
+ | |||
+ | == Greedy hash table searches (~2007) == | ||
+ | * Some examples: SSAKE, SHARCGS, VCAKE | ||
+ | * Much faster & leaner than the previous | ||
+ | * Less robust to variation and noise | ||
+ | * Essentially simplified de Bruijn graph assemblers | ||
+ | * Build a dictionary of words in the data set. | ||
+ | * His example is 4mer, but typically 20mer and longer. | ||
+ | * For each, create a node in the hash table. | ||
+ | * Big dataset. Typically a binary marker to say if present. | ||
+ | * Sometimes at branch have two possible extensions. | ||
+ | * Greedy approach essentially De Bruijn graph with local info only. In this structure you could have many paths through. | ||
+ | * Can throw in reads of different lengths with no problems. | ||
+ | |||
+ | == De Bruijn graph assemblers (~2009) == | ||
+ | * Currently the most common for NGS: Euler, ALLPATHS, Velvet, ABySS, SOAPdenovo | ||
+ | * Pavel Pevzner popularized in paper from 2001 | ||
+ | * Why do we use them? | ||
+ | * High through-put, cheap, short reads with errors | ||
+ | * Basically a compromise between two previous approaches: | ||
+ | * Just a k-mer hash | ||
+ | * ... but processed globally | ||
+ | * Graph construction and correction is similar in all assemblers. | ||
+ | * ABySS handles parallel implementation. | ||
+ | |||
+ | === Working with de Bruijn graphs in Velvet === | ||
+ | |||
+ | == Fixing errors == | ||
+ | * Errors that are created in assembly create spurs/tips that can be easily removed. | ||
+ | * When finding bubbles, remap the branch with the lower coverage back onto the branch with the higher coverage (as not to lose the information). | ||
+ | * Loops can represent tandem repeats. | ||
+ | |||
+ | == Creating de Bruijn graphs == | ||
+ | * First, concatenate the simple graphs without branches into nodes which compact the non-branching runs into a single item. | ||
+ | * Biochemistry of short reads means errors tend to be near the ends. | ||
+ | * If you have errors in the reads in the second half, it creates millions of tips, but they are at least easy to remove later. | ||
+ | * Each read is a path through the graph. The head of the read is still kept, so we're not losing the read placement information. | ||
+ | * We are still left with bubbles. | ||
+ | * Possibly accumulation of overlapping spurs/tips. More often variation (e.g. SNPs or variation). | ||
+ | * Would like to keep that information where possible. | ||
+ | * Could also be a long read. But we don't want to cut the long read in the middle. | ||
+ | * Now we have loops that goes back on itself (not a bubble). | ||
+ | |||
+ | === So what's the difference? === | ||
* Algebraic difference: | * Algebraic difference: | ||
* Reads in the OLC methods are atomic (i.e. an arc) | * Reads in the OLC methods are atomic (i.e. an arc) | ||
* Reads in the DB graph are sequential paths through the graph | * Reads in the DB graph are sequential paths through the graph | ||
* …this leads to practical differences | * …this leads to practical differences | ||
- | * DB graphs allow for greater variety in overlap ** INCOMPLETE ** | + | * DB graphs allow for greater variety of overlaps |
- | * ** INCOMPLETE ** | + | * Overlaps in the OLC approach require a global alignment, not just a shared k-mer |
+ | * OLC methods gets error correction from long reads, while DB graphs requires more work to correct. | ||
+ | |||
+ | === Simulations: Tour Bus - error === | ||
+ | * Compare 5mb chunk from 4 species: //E. coli//, yeast, //C. elegans//, human | ||
+ | * Increased coverage from 0 to 50x | ||
+ | * N50 on y-axis | ||
+ | * First there is exponential growth as expected, but then the complexity causes trouble unless you have other kinds of information. | ||
+ | * Not using paired-reads information | ||
+ | * You see that the human is a little more complex than //E. coli//. | ||
==== Repeat resolution ==== | ==== Repeat resolution ==== | ||
- | Scaling up the hard way: chromosome X | + | |
+ | === Scaling up the hard way: chromosome X === | ||
* 548 million Solexa reads were generated from a flow-sorted human X chromosome. | * 548 million Solexa reads were generated from a flow-sorted human X chromosome. | ||
* Fit in 70GB of RAM | * Fit in 70GB of RAM | ||
- | * Many contigs: 898,401 contigs | + | * Numerous short contigs |
- | * Shirt contigs: 260bp N50 (however max of 6,956bp) | + | * Many contigs: 898,401 contigs |
+ | * Shirt contigs: 260bp N50 (however max of 6,956bp) | ||
* Overall length: 130Mb | * Overall length: 130Mb | ||
+ | * How to handle repeats? | ||
* Moral: there are engineering issues to be resolved but the complexity of the graph needs to be handled accordingly. | * Moral: there are engineering issues to be resolved but the complexity of the graph needs to be handled accordingly. | ||
- | * Reduced representation (Margulies et al.). | + | |
- | * Combined re-mapping and //de novo// sequencing (Cheetham et al., Pleaseance et al.). | + | == Handling complexity of the graph == |
- | * Code parallelization (Birol et al., Jeffrey Cook). | + | * Reduced representation (Margulies et al.). |
- | * Improved indexing (Zamin Iqbal and Mario Caccamo). | + | * Reduced representation using restriction enzymes and gel to cut the problem into tractable bits. |
- | * Use of intermediate remapping (Matthias Haimei). | + | * Cut chunks from the gel and then sequenced the gel slice separately or at least in different lanes. |
- | Rock band: Using long and short reads together | + | * Then the assembly problem is smaller and more localized instead of whole genome. |
+ | * Combined re-mapping and //de novo// sequencing (Cheetham et al., Pleaseance et al.). | ||
+ | * Map to reference or similar genome, then re-map locally some stuff that is unique. | ||
+ | * MAQ and BWA only allow 3 or 4 mismatches. | ||
+ | * Can see reads not mapping in a small area with too many SNPs or breakpoint rearrangments. | ||
+ | * Code parallelization (Birol et al., Jeffrey Cook). | ||
+ | * Only ABySS has published yet | ||
+ | * Improved indexing (Zamin Iqbal and Mario Caccamo). | ||
+ | * Fit WGS onto 200GB | ||
+ | * Use of intermediate remapping (Matthias Haimei). | ||
+ | * Wanted to parallelize the second level work of building scaffolds, but those are mostly engineering issues. | ||
+ | |||
+ | === Repeats in a de Bruijn graph === | ||
+ | * The de Bruijn graph for a small organism looks like long-ish contigs, but still makes a hair-ball. | ||
+ | |||
+ | === Rock band: Using long and short reads together === | ||
* If all of the paths along the short reads move from one long read (e.g. 100-1kb) to another long read, then you know the sequence from the short reads | * If all of the paths along the short reads move from one long read (e.g. 100-1kb) to another long read, then you know the sequence from the short reads | ||
- | Different approaches to repeat resolution | + | * Long reads which are mapped seamlessly into the graph. |
- | * Theoretical: spectral graph analysis | + | * 35bp reads 50x, some long reads (100-1kb) 0-20x |
- | * Equivalent to a Principle Component Analysis or a heat conduction model | + | * Played with the length |
- | * Relies on a (massive) matrix diagonialization | + | * The longer your long reads are, the more bridgeable it is and the longer the contigs. |
- | * Comprehensive: all data integrated at once | + | * "Why not just assemble the long reads?" someone might ask |
- | * Traditional scaffolding | + | |
- | * E.g. Arachne, Celera, BAMBUS | + | === Different approaches to repeat resolution === |
- | * Heuristic approach similar to ** INCOMPLETE ** | + | |
- | * In NGS assemblers: | + | == Theoretical: spectral graph analysis == |
- | * Euler: for each pair of reads, find all possible paths from one read to another | + | * Equivalent to a Principle Component Analysis or a heat conduction model |
- | * ABySS: Same as above, but the read-pairs are bundled into node-to-node connections to reduce calculations | + | * Find what is the vector that threads its way |
- | * ALLPATHS: Same as above, but the search is limited to localized clouds around pre-computed scaffolds | + | * Relies on a (massive) matrix diagonialization |
- | * Using the differences in ** INCOMPLETE ** | + | * Comprehensive: all data integrated at once |
- | * ** INCOMPLETE ** | + | * Takes all the data at once in one huge matrix, not too affected by noise. No one has actually tried this approach as it requires too much computation. |
- | Peeble: Handling paired-end reads | + | |
+ | == Traditional scaffolding == | ||
+ | * E.g. Arachne, Celera, BAMBUS | ||
+ | * Heuristic approach similar to that used in traditional overlap layout-consensus contigs | ||
+ | * The traditional approach is contigs with paired-end reads. | ||
+ | * Find chains connected by contig reads. | ||
+ | * Build a big graph of pairwise connections, simplify, extract obvious linear components | ||
+ | * Your coverage is huge. | ||
+ | * Each base pair has to handle 1000 coverage read-pairs. Long reads separated by a mess in the middle. Check possible paths. Find which are acceptable. | ||
+ | * Find all the reads that start and end on the two long reads. Then consider them all together, much more efficient. | ||
+ | * 5% or more of mate-pairs can be wrong | ||
+ | * Hopefully will be able to filter them out. | ||
+ | * In Velvet use a likelihood approach | ||
+ | * Have a distance estimate | ||
+ | * Coverage of A and B, how many would we expect to see? If we see too few, we discard the connection. | ||
+ | |||
+ | == In NGS assemblers: == | ||
+ | * Euler: for each pair of reads, find all possible paths from one read to another | ||
+ | * ABySS: Same as above, but the read-pairs are bundled into node-to-node connections to reduce calculations | ||
+ | * ALLPATHS: Same as above, but the search is limited to localized clouds around pre-computed scaffolds | ||
+ | * ALLPATHS did better using small localized problems of a single small scaffold for parallelization. | ||
+ | |||
+ | == Using the differences between insert length == | ||
+ | * The Shorty algorithm uses the variance between read pairs anchored on a common contig on k-mer | ||
+ | * Projected image of the other ends creates possibility of assembling a smaller set, the projection from a node. | ||
+ | |||
+ | === Peeble: Handling paired-end reads === | ||
* Pick one unique node, follow their paths | * Pick one unique node, follow their paths | ||
+ | * Velvet used the reverse idea, the projections to a node | ||
* Some of them are unique, pick out those nodes | * Some of them are unique, pick out those nodes | ||
+ | * Hit the nodes in the vicinity of the starting contig, got distance information on the immediate vicinity. | ||
+ | * Uses a greedy algorithm. Find way to next unique node. | ||
+ | * Having a more-precise insert size could help | ||
+ | * Velvet did a size assuming 10% distribution | ||
+ | * Solexa might have been different | ||
+ | * SOLiD up to 2k, Solexa just 300 | ||
+ | * It is difficult to have enough DNA of a narrow range. | ||
+ | * Don't love barcoding because it uses a lot of reagents. | ||
+ | |||
==== Practical considerations ==== | ==== Practical considerations ==== | ||
- | Colorspace | + | |
+ | === Colorspace === | ||
* Di-base encoding has a 4 letter alphabet, but very different behavior to sequence space | * Di-base encoding has a 4 letter alphabet, but very different behavior to sequence space | ||
+ | * Double-encoded files use ACGT. | ||
+ | * Be careful not to confuse it! | ||
* Different rules for complementarity | * Different rules for complementarity | ||
+ | * Just reverse, don't complement them. | ||
* Direct conversion to sequence space is simple but wasteful | * Direct conversion to sequence space is simple but wasteful | ||
- | * One error messes up all the remaining bases | + | * One error messes up all the remaining bases. This is a huge loss, so do all in colorspace and make a complete assembly, then finally convert to base calls later. |
* Conversion must therefore be done at the very end of the process, when the reads are aligned | * Conversion must therefore be done at the very end of the process, when the reads are aligned | ||
- | * You can then use the transition rules to detect errors | + | * You can then use the transition rules to detect errors. Typically it detects the error after 1 or 2 bp, then corrects. |
- | Different error models | + | * SOLiD has developed tools |
+ | |||
+ | === Different error models === | ||
* When using different technologies, you have to take into account different technologies | * When using different technologies, you have to take into account different technologies | ||
* Trivial when doing OLC assembly | * Trivial when doing OLC assembly | ||
* Much more tricky when doing De Bruijn graph assemble, since k-mers are not assigned to reads | * Much more tricky when doing De Bruijn graph assemble, since k-mers are not assigned to reads | ||
* Different assemblers had different settings (e.g. Newbler) | * Different assemblers had different settings (e.g. Newbler) | ||
- | Pre-filtering the reads | + | * 454 had homopolymer issues in flow-space. |
+ | * Illumina or ABI are different. | ||
+ | * Makes it hard to handle errors. | ||
+ | * Especially in de Bruijn graphs. Applying the correction rules becomes much more complex. | ||
+ | * Newbler may be better for 454. | ||
+ | |||
+ | === Pre-filtering the reads === | ||
* Some assemblers have in-built filtering of the reads (e.g. Euler) but not a generality | * Some assemblers have in-built filtering of the reads (e.g. Euler) but not a generality | ||
* Efficient filtering of low quality bases can cut down on the computational cost (memory and time) | * Efficient filtering of low quality bases can cut down on the computational cost (memory and time) | ||
+ | * User-specific, data-space specific solutions | ||
+ | * No tried and true consistent approach | ||
* Beware that some assemblers require reads of identical length | * Beware that some assemblers require reads of identical length | ||
+ | |||
==== Extensions to Velvet ==== | ==== Extensions to Velvet ==== | ||
- | Oases: //de novo// transcriptome assembly (How to study mRNA reads which do not map) | + | ** Oases: //de novo// transcriptome assembly ** \\ |
- | De Brujin graphs ~ splice graphs | + | How to study mRNA reads which do not map |
+ | |||
+ | === De Brujin graphs ~ splice graphs === | ||
* Pavel Pevzner mentioned that De Bruijn graphs are more or less like splice graphs | * Pavel Pevzner mentioned that De Bruijn graphs are more or less like splice graphs | ||
- | Oases: Process | + | |
+ | === Oases: Process === | ||
* Create clusters of contigs: | * Create clusters of contigs: | ||
* Connecting reads | * Connecting reads | ||
Line 99: | Line 231: | ||
* Motif searches | * Motif searches | ||
* Dynamic assembly of transcripts (Lee, 2003) | * Dynamic assembly of transcripts (Lee, 2003) | ||
- | Oases: Output | + | |
+ | === Oases: Output === | ||
* Full length transcripts - handles alternative splicing. | * Full length transcripts - handles alternative splicing. | ||
* Transcripts from different genes - handles varying coverage levels. | * Transcripts from different genes - handles varying coverage levels. | ||
* Alternative splicing events: when possible, distinguished between common AS events. | * Alternative splicing events: when possible, distinguished between common AS events. | ||
- | Oases: Results: | + | |
- | * ** INCOMPLETE ** | + | === Oases: Results === |
- | Oases: results of Drosophila PE-reads | + | * Benchmarked within the RGASP competition |
- | * The number of transcripts and loci are in the ballpark of what they were expecting | + | * Already 100+ users, some reporting very promising results: |
- | Mapping vs. //de novo// | + | * N50 = 1886 bp (Monica Britton, UC Davis) |
+ | * 99.8% of aligned transcripts against unigene (Micha Bayer - Scottish Crop Research Institute) | ||
+ | |||
+ | === Oases: results of Drosophila PE-reads === | ||
+ | * The number of transcripts and loci are in the ballpark of what they were expecting. | ||
+ | |||
+ | === Mapping vs. de novo === | ||
* Mapping | * Mapping | ||
* Many tools available | * Many tools available | ||
Line 115: | Line 254: | ||
* No reference needed | * No reference needed | ||
* Handles novel structures without //a priori// | * Handles novel structures without //a priori// | ||
- | Columbus: Velvet module | + | |
+ | === Columbus: Velvet module === | ||
* Solution: the reference-based de Bruijn graph | * Solution: the reference-based de Bruijn graph | ||
* Preserves the structure of the reference sequences | * Preserves the structure of the reference sequences | ||
* Integrates alignment information (SAM, BAM file) | * Integrates alignment information (SAM, BAM file) | ||
- | * Edits, breaks up, reconnects ** INCOMPLETE ** | + | * Edits, breaks up, reconnects, and extends the "alignment contigs" as necessary |
- | + | ||
===== Galt's Notes ===== | ===== Galt's Notes ===== | ||
- | |||
- | Assembling and comparing genomes or transcriptomes using de Bruijn graphs. | ||
- | |||
- | Daniel Zerbino, Marcel Schulz, Wendy Lee, | ||
- | Ewan Birney and David Haussler. | ||
- | |||
- | Slides will be made available. | ||
- | |||
- | Talking about | ||
- | *ways to build graphs | ||
- | *handle repeats | ||
- | *practical considerations | ||
- | *extensions to velvet | ||
- | |||
- | ==== OLC ==== | ||
- | Traditional approach is overlap-layout-consensus | ||
- | Phrap, etc.\\ | ||
- | Short reads - Edena\\ | ||
- | More expensive computationally. | ||
- | Use whole-read alignments. | ||
- | |||
- | === Quick OLC example === | ||
- | Filter out all the reads that are identical or self-contained in another read. | ||
- | Only left-to-right etc allowed. | ||
- | Compute all their overlaps. | ||
- | Get many transitive redundant connections. | ||
- | Many algorithms are available for transitive reduction. | ||
- | You obtain simplified paths through the reads. | ||
- | Get 4 big chunks of reads from the example. | ||
- | Hard to distinguish which reads belong to which copy of the repeat. | ||
- | This is how contigs were first built. | ||
- | Have to compare all reads against each other, | ||
- | Quadratic. This has become difficult. | ||
- | NGS reads are short, and overlaps between reads are short. | ||
- | They are getting a little longer with newer technology. | ||
- | OLC method uses all information in the read at least. | ||
- | |||
- | ==== DBG ==== | ||
- | |||
- | De Bruijn graphs, Pavel Pevzner popularized in paper 2001. | ||
- | Why do we use them? | ||
- | High through-put, cheap, short reads with errors. | ||
- | |||
- | |||
- | The next-gen means 2007 there were many papers, SSKE, SHARCGS, VCKE, | ||
- | have a kmer hash, much faster and leaner, but get noise. | ||
- | |||
- | Build a dictionary of words in the data set. | ||
- | His example is 4mer, but typically 20mer and longer. | ||
- | For each, create a node in the hash table. | ||
- | Big dataset. Typically a binary marker to say if present. | ||
- | Sometimes at branch have two possible extensions. | ||
- | Greedy approach essentially De Bruijn graph with | ||
- | local info only. In this structure you could have | ||
- | many paths through. And reads of different lengths can be used. | ||
- | |||
- | Later Euler, Allphaths, Velvet, ABySS, SOAPdenovo came out. | ||
- | They souped up the kmer hash, but processed more globally. | ||
- | Graph construction and correction is similar in all assemblers. | ||
- | ABySS handles parallel implementation. | ||
- | |||
- | First, concatenate the simple graphs without branches | ||
- | into nodes which compact the non-branching runs into a single item. | ||
- | Biochemistry of shortreads means errors tend to be near the ends. | ||
- | If you have errors in the reads in the second half, | ||
- | it creates millions of tips, but they are at least easy to | ||
- | remove later. | ||
- | |||
- | Each read is a path through the graph. The head of the read | ||
- | is still kept, so we're not losing the read placement information. | ||
- | |||
- | We are still left with bubbles. | ||
- | Possibly accumulation of overlapping spur-tips. | ||
- | More often variation e.g. SNP or variation. | ||
- | Would like to keep that information where possible. | ||
- | Could also be a long read. But don't want to cut | ||
- | the long read in the middle. When you find a bubble | ||
- | in velvet, remap that back onto the one with the higher | ||
- | branch. | ||
- | Now we have a loop that goes back | ||
- | on itself (not a bubble). e.g. tandem repeats. | ||
- | |||
- | OLC has atomic arcs. | ||
- | DBG has a greater variety of overlaps. | ||
- | |||
- | OLC gets error correction from long reads. | ||
- | DBG requires more work to correct. | ||
- | |||
- | ==== Tour Bus ==== | ||
- | Errors. | ||
- | Compare 5mb chunk from 4 species, ecolo yeast, elegans, human. | ||
- | Increased coverage from 0 to 50x. | ||
- | N50 on y axis. | ||
- | First, exponential growth as expected. | ||
- | Then the complexity causes trouble, | ||
- | unless you have other kinds of information. | ||
- | Not using paired-reads information. | ||
- | You see that the human is a little more complex than E. coli. | ||
- | |||
- | Scaling up the hard way: chrX. | ||
- | 1/2 billion reads from flow-sorted human chrX. | ||
- | Fit in 70gb ram. | ||
- | Overall length 130mb. | ||
- | Short contigs, and numerous. | ||
- | How to handle the repeats? | ||
- | |||
- | **Margulies** used reduced representation | ||
- | using restriction enzymes and gel | ||
- | to cut the problem into tractable bits. | ||
- | Cut chunks from the gel, and then | ||
- | sequenced the gel slice separately, | ||
- | or at least in different lanes. | ||
- | Then the assembly problem is smaller | ||
- | and more localized instead of whole-genome. | ||
- | |||
- | Combined re-mapping and de novo sequencing. | ||
- | **Cheetem and Pleasance**. | ||
- | Map to reference or similar genome, | ||
- | then re-map locally some stuff that's unique. | ||
- | |||
- | MAQ and BWA only allow 3 or 4 mismatches. | ||
- | Can see reads not mapping in a small area | ||
- | with too many SNPs or breakpoint rearrangment. | ||
- | |||
- | Code parallelization (**Birol and Cook**). | ||
- | Only ABySS has published yet. | ||
- | |||
- | Improved indexing | ||
- | Fit WGS onto 200GB. | ||
- | |||
- | Use of intermediate re-mapping. (**Haimel**) | ||
- | Wanted to parallelize the second level | ||
- | work of building scaffolds. | ||
- | |||
- | But those are mostly engineering issues. | ||
- | |||
- | The DBG for a small organism | ||
- | looks like long-ish contigs, | ||
- | but still makes a hair-ball. | ||
- | |||
- | ==== Rock Band ==== | ||
- | Use long and short reads together. | ||
- | Long reads which are mapped seamlessly into the graph. | ||
- | |||
- | 35bp reads 50x, some long reads (100-1kb) 0-20x. | ||
- | Played with the length. | ||
- | The longer your longreads are, the more bridgeable | ||
- | it is and the longer the contigs. | ||
- | Why not just assemble the long reads? someone might ask. | ||
- | |||
- | Different approach. Spectral graph analysis. | ||
- | Find what is the vector that threads its way. | ||
- | Has a fancy theory with massive matrix diagonalization. | ||
- | Takes all the data at once in one huge matrix, | ||
- | not too affected by noise. No one has actually | ||
- | tried this approach. Too much computation. | ||
- | The trad approach is contigs with paired-end reads. | ||
- | Find chains connected by contig reads. | ||
- | |||
- | Your coverage is huge. | ||
- | Each basepair has to handle 1000 coverage | ||
- | read-pairs. Long reads separated by a mess | ||
- | in the middle. Check possible paths. | ||
- | Find which are acceptable. | ||
- | Find all the reads that start and end on the | ||
- | two long reads. Then consider them all | ||
- | together, much more efficient. | ||
- | |||
- | 5% or more of mate-pairs can be wrong. | ||
- | Hopefully will be able to filter them out. | ||
- | In velvet use a likelihood approach. | ||
- | Have a distance estimate. | ||
- | Coverage of A and B, how many would | ||
- | we expect to see? If we see too few, | ||
- | we discard the connection. | ||
- | |||
- | Allpaths did better using small localized problems | ||
- | of a single small scaffold for parallelization. | ||
- | |||
- | The Shorty algorithm uses the variance between | ||
- | read pair anchored on a common contig on a kmer. | ||
- | Projected image of the other ends creates possibility | ||
- | of assembling a smaller set, the projection from a node. | ||
- | |||
- | ==== PEBBLE ==== | ||
- | Velvet used the reverse idea, the projections to a node. | ||
- | Hit the nodes in the vicinity of the starting contig, | ||
- | got distance information on the immediate vicinity. | ||
- | Have a greedy algorithm. Find way to next unique node. | ||
- | |||
- | Having a more-precise insert size could help. | ||
- | Velvet did a size assuming 10% distribution. | ||
- | Solexa might have been different. | ||
- | Solid up to 2k, solexa just 300. | ||
- | It is difficult to have enough dna of a narrow range. | ||
- | Don't love barcoding because it uses a lot of reagents. | ||
- | |||
- | |||
- | ==== COLOR-SPACE ==== | ||
- | |||
- | 4-letter alphabet. | ||
- | Double-encoded files use ACGT. | ||
- | Be careful not to confuse it. | ||
- | Different rules for complementarity. | ||
- | Just reverse, don't complement them. | ||
- | The assemblers and mappers should | ||
- | in theory adapt to this. | ||
- | Could use base-space, but one error | ||
- | will ruin the rest of the read. This is | ||
- | a huge loss, so do all in colorspace | ||
- | and make a complete assembly, | ||
- | then finally convert to base calls later. | ||
- | Typically it detects the error after | ||
- | 1 or 2 bp, then corrects. | ||
- | SOLID has developed tools. | ||
- | |||
- | Different error models. | ||
- | 454 had homopolymer issues, flowspace. | ||
- | Illumina or ABI are different. | ||
- | Makes it hard to handle errors. | ||
- | Especially in DBG. Applying the correction | ||
- | rules becomes much more complex. | ||
- | Newbler may be better for 454. | ||
- | |||
- | Pre-filtering reads. | ||
- | Some assemblers have built-in filtering of reads. | ||
- | |||
- | Filtering low quality bases can cut down | ||
- | on the computational cost. | ||
- | |||
- | User-specific, data-space specific solutions. | ||
- | No tried and true consistent approach. | ||
- | |||
- | Some assemblers require reads of identical lengths. | ||
- | |||
- | ----------- | ||
==== OASES ==== | ==== OASES ==== | ||
Line 419: | Line 321: | ||
useful. They have been using 200bp tiny stuff. | useful. They have been using 200bp tiny stuff. | ||
- | ==== End-of-class Business ==== | + | ===== End-of-class business ===== |
- | + | ||
- | We can put Daniel's slides on the wiki. | + | |
- | + | ||
- | Galt will send Daniel a link to the wiki. | + | |
Kevin on Wed. will be talking about: | Kevin on Wed. will be talking about: | ||
- | Use solid data for ordering and orientation of Pog contigs. | + | * Use SOLiD data for ordering and orientation of //Pog// contigs |
- | Special purpose and scripts. | + | * Special purpose scripts |
- | The data was so noisy. | + | * The data was so noisy |
- | + | ||
- | + |