Accurate determination of node and arc multiplicities in de bruijn graphs using conditional random fields.
De Bruijn graphs
Next-generation sequencing
Probabilistic graphical models
Journal
BMC bioinformatics
ISSN: 1471-2105
Titre abrégé: BMC Bioinformatics
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100965194
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 Sep 2020
14 Sep 2020
Historique:
received:
18
06
2020
accepted:
04
09
2020
entrez:
15
9
2020
pubmed:
16
9
2020
medline:
21
10
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
De Bruijn graphs are key data structures for the analysis of next-generation sequencing data. They efficiently represent the overlap between reads and hence, also the underlying genome sequence. However, sequencing errors and repeated subsequences render the identification of the true underlying sequence difficult. A key step in this process is the inference of the multiplicities of nodes and arcs in the graph. These multiplicities correspond to the number of times each k-mer (resp. k+1-mer) implied by a node (resp. arc) is present in the genomic sequence. Determining multiplicities thus reveals the repeat structure and presence of sequencing errors. Multiplicities of nodes/arcs in the de Bruijn graph are reflected in their coverage, however, coverage variability and coverage biases render their determination ambiguous. Current methods to determine node/arc multiplicities base their decisions solely on the information in nodes and arcs individually, under-utilising the information present in the sequencing data. To improve the accuracy with which node and arc multiplicities in a de Bruijn graph are inferred, we developed a conditional random field (CRF) model to efficiently combine the coverage information within each node/arc individually with the information of surrounding nodes and arcs. Multiplicities are thus collectively assigned in a more consistent manner. We demonstrate that the CRF model yields significant improvements in accuracy and a more robust expectation-maximisation parameter estimation. True k-mers can be distinguished from erroneous k-mers with a higher F
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
De Bruijn graphs are key data structures for the analysis of next-generation sequencing data. They efficiently represent the overlap between reads and hence, also the underlying genome sequence. However, sequencing errors and repeated subsequences render the identification of the true underlying sequence difficult. A key step in this process is the inference of the multiplicities of nodes and arcs in the graph. These multiplicities correspond to the number of times each k-mer (resp. k+1-mer) implied by a node (resp. arc) is present in the genomic sequence. Determining multiplicities thus reveals the repeat structure and presence of sequencing errors. Multiplicities of nodes/arcs in the de Bruijn graph are reflected in their coverage, however, coverage variability and coverage biases render their determination ambiguous. Current methods to determine node/arc multiplicities base their decisions solely on the information in nodes and arcs individually, under-utilising the information present in the sequencing data.
RESULTS
RESULTS
To improve the accuracy with which node and arc multiplicities in a de Bruijn graph are inferred, we developed a conditional random field (CRF) model to efficiently combine the coverage information within each node/arc individually with the information of surrounding nodes and arcs. Multiplicities are thus collectively assigned in a more consistent manner.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
We demonstrate that the CRF model yields significant improvements in accuracy and a more robust expectation-maximisation parameter estimation. True k-mers can be distinguished from erroneous k-mers with a higher F
Identifiants
pubmed: 32928110
doi: 10.1186/s12859-020-03740-x
pii: 10.1186/s12859-020-03740-x
pmc: PMC7491180
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
402Références
BMC Genomics. 2013;14 Suppl 1:S7
pubmed: 23368723
Genome Res. 2008 Feb;18(2):324-30
pubmed: 18083777
Bioinformatics. 2005 Sep 1;21 Suppl 2:ii79-85
pubmed: 16204131
Bioinformatics. 2014 Dec 15;30(24):3506-14
pubmed: 25165095
BMC Bioinformatics. 2017 Aug 18;18(1):374
pubmed: 28821237
Nat Genet. 2014 Aug;46(8):912-918
pubmed: 25017105
Genome Res. 2017 Jan;27(1):157-164
pubmed: 27903644
PLoS Comput Biol. 2017 Jun 8;13(6):e1005595
pubmed: 28594827
Brief Bioinform. 2013 Jan;14(1):56-66
pubmed: 22492192
Genome Res. 2008 May;18(5):821-9
pubmed: 18349386
PLoS Genet. 2019 Mar 28;15(3):e1008004
pubmed: 30921322
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2014 May;69(5):1275-81
pubmed: 24370932
J Comput Biol. 2009 Aug;16(8):1101-16
pubmed: 19645596
J Comput Biol. 2012 May;19(5):455-77
pubmed: 22506599
Nat Biotechnol. 2012 Jul 01;30(7):693-700
pubmed: 22750884
Nat Genet. 2012 Jan 08;44(2):226-32
pubmed: 22231483
Bioinformatics. 2016 Jun 15;32(12):i201-i208
pubmed: 27307618
Bioinformatics. 2001;17 Suppl 1:S225-33
pubmed: 11473013
Bioinformatics. 2016 Apr 1;32(7):1009-15
pubmed: 26589280
Bioinformatics. 2020 Mar 1;36(5):1374-1381
pubmed: 30785192
Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2015;16:153-72
pubmed: 25939056
Commun Biol. 2018 Mar 22;1:20
pubmed: 30271907
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001 Aug 14;98(17):9748-53
pubmed: 11504945
Genome Biol. 2010;11(11):R116
pubmed: 21114842
Algorithms Mol Biol. 2016 May 03;11:10
pubmed: 27148393
Science. 2000 Mar 24;287(5461):2196-204
pubmed: 10731133
Bioinformatics. 2018 Dec 15;34(24):4213-4222
pubmed: 29955770