Simulation Tools of Genomic Next Generation Sequencing Data: Comparative Analysis & Genetic Simulation Resources
Reporting: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN
INTRODUCTION
NGS IN THE CLINIC
[Clinical Applications of Next-Generation Sequencing].
Rebollar-Vega RG, Arriaga-Canon C, de la Rosa-Velázquez IA.
Rev Invest Clin. 2018;70(4):153-157. doi: 10.24875/RIC.18002544.
Clinical Genomics: Challenges and Opportunities.
Vijay P, McIntyre AB, Mason CE, Greenfield JP, Li S.
Crit Rev Eukaryot Gene Expr. 2016;26(2):97-113. doi: 10.1615/CritRevEukaryotGeneExpr.2016015724. Review.
Next-generation sequencing in the clinic: promises and challenges.
Xuan J, Yu Y, Qing T, Guo L, Shi L.
Cancer Lett. 2013 Nov 1;340(2):284-95. doi: 10.1016/j.canlet.2012.11.025. Epub 2012 Nov 19. Review.
The Future of Whole-Genome Sequencing for Public Health and the Clinic.
Allard MW.
J Clin Microbiol. 2016 Aug;54(8):1946-8. doi: 10.1128/JCM.01082-16. Epub 2016 Jun 15.
Similar articles
Standards and Guidelines for Validating Next-Generation Sequencing Bioinformatics Pipelines: A Joint Recommendation of the Association for Molecular Pathology and the College of American Pathologists.
Roy S, Coldren C, Karunamurthy A, Kip NS, Klee EW, Lincoln SE, Leon A, Pullambhatla M, Temple-Smolkin RL, Voelkerding KV, Wang C, Carter AB.
J Mol Diagn. 2018 Jan;20(1):4-27. doi: 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2017.11.003. Epub 2017 Nov 21. Review.
MUTATION ANALYSIS – GENE ENCODING
Next-Generation Sequencing and Mutational Analysis: Implications for Genes Encoding LINC Complex Proteins.
Nagy PL, Worman HJ.
Methods Mol Biol. 2018;1840:321-336. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-8691-0_22.
Genome-wide genetic marker discovery and genotyping using next-generation sequencing.
Davey JW, Hohenlohe PA, Etter PD, Boone JQ, Catchen JM, Blaxter ML.
Nat Rev Genet. 2011 Jun 17;12(7):499-510. doi: 10.1038/nrg3012. Review.
MITOCHONDRIAL VATIATIONS
mit-o-matic: a comprehensive computational pipeline for clinical evaluation of mitochondrial variations from next-generation sequencing datasets.
Vellarikkal SK, Dhiman H, Joshi K, Hasija Y, Sivasubbu S, Scaria V.
Hum Mutat. 2015 Apr;36(4):419-24. doi: 10.1002/humu.22767.
VARIANT ANALYSIS
A survey of tools for variant analysis of next-generation genome sequencing data.
Pabinger S, Dander A, Fischer M, Snajder R, Sperk M, Efremova M, Krabichler B, Speicher MR, Zschocke J, Trajanoski Z.
Brief Bioinform. 2014 Mar;15(2):256-78. doi: 10.1093/bib/bbs086. Epub 2013 Jan 21.
ICO amplicon NGS data analysis: a Web tool for variant detection in common high-risk hereditary cancer genes analyzed by amplicon GS Junior next-generation sequencing.
Lopez-Doriga A, Feliubadaló L, Menéndez M, Lopez-Doriga S, Morón-Duran FD, del Valle J, Tornero E, Montes E, Cuesta R, Campos O, Gómez C, Pineda M, González S, Moreno V, Capellá G, Lázaro C.
Hum Mutat. 2014 Mar;35(3):271-7.
Development and analytical validation of a 25-gene next generation sequencing panel that includes the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes to assess hereditary cancer risk.
Judkins T, Leclair B, Bowles K, Gutin N, Trost J, McCulloch J, Bhatnagar S, Murray A, Craft J, Wardell B, Bastian M, Mitchell J, Chen J, Tran T, Williams D, Potter J, Jammulapati S, Perry M, Morris B, Roa B, Timms K.
BMC Cancer. 2015 Apr 2;15:215. doi: 10.1186/s12885-015-1224-y.
Clinical Applications of Next-Generation Sequencing in Cancer Diagnosis.
Sabour L, Sabour M, Ghorbian S.
Pathol Oncol Res. 2017 Apr;23(2):225-234. doi: 10.1007/s12253-016-0124-z. Epub 2016 Oct 8. Review.
IMMUNOINFORMATICS
RNA SEQUENCING
SimBA: A methodology and tools for evaluating the performance of RNA-Seq bioinformatic pipelines.
Audoux J, Salson M, Grosset CF, Beaumeunier S, Holder JM, Commes T, Philippe N.
BMC Bioinformatics. 2017 Sep 29;18(1):428. doi: 10.1186/s12859-017-1831-5.
INDELseek: detection of complex insertions and deletions from next-generation sequencing data.
Au CH, Leung AY, Kwong A, Chan TL, Ma ES.
BMC Genomics. 2017 Jan 5;18(1):16. doi: 10.1186/s12864-016-3449-9.
The State of Software for Evolutionary Biology.
Darriba D, Flouri T, Stamatakis A.
Mol Biol Evol. 2018 May 1;35(5):1037-1046. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msy014. Review.
SIMULATION PROGRAMS
PMCID: PMC5224698
EMSID: EMS70941
A comparison of tools for the simulation of genomic next-generation sequencing data
The publisher’s final edited version of this article is available at
Nat Rev Genet
Online Summary
-
There is a large number of tools for the simulation of genomic data for all currently available NGS platforms, with partially overlapped functionality. Here we review 23 of these tools, highlighting their distinct functionalities, requirements and potential applications.
-
The parameterization of these simulators is often complex. The user may decide between using existing sets of parameters values called profiles or re-estimating them from its own data.
-
Parameters than can be modulated in these simulations include the effects of the PCR amplification of the libraries, read features and quality scores, base call errors, variation of sequencing depth across the genomes and the introduction of genomic variants.
-
Several types of genomic variants can be introduced in the simulated reads, such as SNPs, indels, inversions, translocations, copy-number variants and short-tandem repeats.
-
Reads can be generated from single or multiple genomes, and with distinct ploidy levels. NGS data from metagenomic communities can be simulated given an “abundance profile” that reflects the proportion of taxa in a given sample.
-
Many of the simulators have not been formally described and/or tested in dedicated publications. We encourage the formal publication of these tools and the realization of comprehensive, comparative benchmarkings.
-
Choosing among the different genomic NGS simulators is not easy. Here we provide a guidance tree to help users choosing a suitable tool for their specific interests.
Abstract
Computer simulation of genomic data has become increasingly popular for assessing and validating biological models or to gain understanding about specific datasets. Multiple computational tools for the simulation of next-generation sequencing (NGS) data have been developed in recent years, which could be used to compare existing and new NGS analytical pipelines. Here we review 23 of these tools, highlighting their distinct functionality, requirements and potential applications. We also provide a decision tree for the informed selection of an appropriate NGS simulation tool for the specific question at hand.
Image source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5224698/
An overview of current NGS technologies
The most popular NGS technologies on the market are Illumina’s sequencing by synthesis, which is probably the most widely used platform at present17, Roche’s 454 pyrosequencing (454), SOLiD sequencing-by-ligation (SOLiD), IonTorrent semiconductor sequencing18 (IonTorrent), Pacific Biosciences’s (PacBio) single molecule real-time sequencing19, and Oxford Nanopore Technologies (Nanopore) single-cell DNA template strand sequencing. These strategies can differ, for example, regarding the type of reads they produce or the kind of sequencing errors they introduce (). Only two of the current technologies (Illumina and SOLiD) are capable of producing all three sequencing read types —single end, paired end and mate pair. Read length is also dependent on the machine and the kit used; in platforms like Illumina, SOLiD, or IonTorrent it is possible to specify the number of desired base pairs per read. According to the sequencing run type selected it is possible to obtain reads with maximum lengths of 75 bp (SOLiD), 300 bp (Illumina) or 400bp (IonTorrent). On the other hand, in platforms like 454, Nanopore or PacBio, information is only given about the mean and maximum read length that can be obtained, with average lengths of 700 bp, 10 kb and 15 kb and maximum lengths of 1 kb, 10 kb and 15 kb, respectively. Error rates vary depending on the platform from <=1% in Illumina to ~30% in Nanopore. Further overviews and comparisons of NGS strategies can be found in 5,20–22.
Table 1
Main characteristics of current NGS technologies.
| Technology |
Run Type |
Maximum Read Length |
Quality Scores |
Error Rates |
References |
| Single-read |
Paired-end |
Mate-pair |
| Illumina |
X |
X |
X |
300 bp |
> Q30 |
0.0034 – 1% |
65 |
| SOLiD |
X |
X |
X |
75 bp |
> Q30 |
0.01 – 1% |
66 |
| IonTorrent |
X |
X |
|
400 bp |
~ Q20 |
1.78% |
22 |
| 454 |
X |
X |
|
~700 bp (up to 1 Kb) |
> Q20 |
1.07 – 1.7% |
59,67 |
| Nanopore |
X |
|
|
5.4 – 10 Kb |
NAY |
10 – 40% |
68–72 |
| PacBio |
X |
|
|
~15 Kb (up to 40 Kb) |
< Q10 |
5 – 10% |
22,73–75 |
Simulation parameters
The existing sequencing platforms use distinct protocols that result in datasets with different characteristics1. Many of these attributes can be taken into account by the simulators (), although there is not a single tool that incorporates all possible variations. The main characteristics of the 23 simulators considered here are summarized in and . These tools differ in multiple aspects, such as sequencing technology, input requirements or output format, but maintain several common aspects. With some exceptions, all programs need a reference sequence, multiple parameter values indicating the characteristics of the sequencing experiment to be simulated (read length, error distribution, type of variation to be generated, if any, etc.) and/or a profile (a set of parameter values, conditions and/or data used for controlling the simulation), which can be provided by the simulator or estimated de novo from empirical data. The outcome will be aligned or unaligned reads in different standard file formats, such as FASTQ, FASTA or BAM. An overview of the NGS data simulation process is represented in . In the following sections we delve into the different steps involved.
General overview of the sequencing process and steps that can be parameterized in the simulations.
NGS simulators try to imitate the real sequencing process as closely as possible by considering all the steps that could influence the characteristics of the reads. a | NGS simulators do not take into account the effect of the different DNA extraction protocols in the resulting data. However, they can consider whether the sample we want to sequence includes one or more individuals, from the same or different organisms (e.g., pool-sequencing, metagenomics). Pools of related genomes can be simulated by replicating the reference sequence and introducing variants on the resulting genomes. Some tools can also simulate metagenomes with distinct taxa abundance. b | Simulators can try to mimic the length range of DNA fragmentation (empirically obtained by sonication or digestion protocols) or assume a fixed amplicon length. c | Library preparation involves ligating sequencing–platform dependent adaptors and/or barcodes to the selected DNA fragments (inserts). Some simulators can control the insert size, and produce reads with adaptors/barcodes. d | | Most NGS techniques include an amplification step for the preparation of libraries. Several simulators can take this step into account (for example, by introducing errors and/or chimaeras), with the possibility of specifying the number of reads per amplicons. e | Sequencing runs imply a decision about coverage, read length, read type (single-end, paired-end, mate-pair) and a given platform (with their specific errors and biases). Simulators exist for the different platforms, and they can use particular parameter profiles, often estimated from real data.
General overview of NGS simulation.
The simulation process begins with the input of a reference sequence (most cases) and simulation parameters. Some of the parameters can be given via a profile, that is estimated (by the simulator or other tools) from other reads or alignments. The outcome of this process may be reads (with or without quality information) or genome alignments in different formats.
CONCLUSIONS
NGS is having a big impact in a broad range of areas that benefit from genetic information, from medical genomics, phylogenetic and population genomics, to the reconstruction of ancient genomes, epigenomics and environmental barcoding. These applications include approaches such as de novo sequencing, resequencing, target sequencing or genome reduction methods. In all cases, caution is necessary in choosing a proper sequencing design and/or a reliable analytical approach for the specific biological question of interest. The simulation of NGS data can be extremely useful for planning experiments, testing hypotheses, benchmarking tools and evaluating particular results. Given a reference genome or dataset, for instance, one can play with an array of sequencing technologies to choose the best-suited technology and parameters for the particular goal, possibly optimizing time and costs. Yet, this is still not the standard practice and researchers often base their choices on practical considerations like technology and money availability. As shown throughout this Review, simulation of NGS data from known genomes or transcriptomes can be extremely useful when evaluating assembly, mapping, phasing or genotyping algorithms e.g. 2,7,10,13,64 exposing their advantages and drawbacks under different circumstances.
Altogether, current NGS simulators consider most, if not all, of the important features regarding the generation of NGS data. However, they are not problem-free. The different simulators are largely redundant, implementing the same or very similar procedures. In our opinion, many are poorly documented and can be difficult to use for non-experts, and some of them are no longer maintained. Most importantly, for the most part they have not been benchmarked or validated. Remarkably, among the 23 tools considered here, only 13 have been described in dedicated application notes, 3 have been mentioned as add-ons in the methods section of bigger articles, and 5 have never been referenced in a journal. Indeed, peer-reviewed publication of these tools in dedicated articles would be highly desirable. While this would not definitively guarantee quality, at least it would encourage authors to reach minimum standards in terms of validation, benchmarking, and documentation. Collaborative efforts like the Assemblathon e.g. 27 or iEvo (http://www.ievobio.org/) might be also a source of inspiration. Meanwhile, we hope that the decision tree presented in helps users making appropriate choices.
SOURCE
REFERENCES
Serghei Mangul, Lana S. Martin, Brian L. Hill, Angela Ka-Mei Lam, Margaret G. Distler, Alex Zelikovsky, Eleazar Eskin, Jonathan Flint
Nat Commun. 2019; 10: 1393. Published online 2019 Mar 27. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-09406-4
Ge Tan, Lennart Opitz, Ralph Schlapbach, Hubert Rehrauer
Sci Rep. 2019; 9: 2856. Published online 2019 Feb 27. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-39076-7
Apostolos Dimitromanolakis, Jingxiong Xu, Agnieszka Krol, Laurent Briollais
BMC Bioinformatics. 2019; 20: 26. Published online 2019 Jan 15. doi: 10.1186/s12859-019-2611-1
Kathleen E. Lotterhos, Jason H. Moore, Ann E. Stapleton
PLoS Biol. 2018 Dec; 16(12): e3000070. Published online 2018 Dec 10. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000070
Hayley Cassidy, Randy Poelman, Marjolein Knoester, Coretta C. Van Leer-Buter, Hubert G. M. Niesters
Front Microbiol. 2018; 9: 2677. Published online 2018 Nov 13. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.02677
Genetic Simulation Resources and the GSR Certification Program
Bo Peng, Man Chong Leong, Huann-Sheng Chen, Melissa Rotunno, Katy R Brignole, John Clarke, Leah E Mechanic
Bioinformatics. 2019 Feb 15; 35(4): 709–710. Published online 2018 Aug 7. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty666
Currently embargoed: Free in PMC on Feb 15, 2020;
PubMed
Hadrien Gourlé, Oskar Karlsson-Lindsjö, Juliette Hayer, Erik Bongcam-Rudloff
Bioinformatics. 2019 Feb 1; 35(3): 521–522. Published online 2018 Jul 19. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty630
Ze-Gang Wei, Shao-Wu Zhang
BMC Bioinformatics. 2018; 19: 177. Published online 2018 May 22. doi: 10.1186/s12859-018-2208-0
Yu Li, Renmin Han, Chongwei Bi, Mo Li, Sheng Wang, Xin Gao
Bioinformatics. 2018 Sep 1; 34(17): 2899–2908. Published online 2018 Apr 6. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty223
Roberto Semeraro, Valerio Orlandini, Alberto Magi
PLoS One. 2018; 13(4): e0194472. Published online 2018 Apr 5. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0194472
Soroush Samadian, Jeff P. Bruce, Trevor J. Pugh
PLoS Comput Biol. 2018 Mar; 14(3): e1006080. Published online 2018 Mar 28. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006080
Brandon J. Varela, David Lesbarrères, Roberto Ibáñez, David M. Green
Front Microbiol. 2018; 9: 298. Published online 2018 Feb 22. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.00298
Fedor M. Naumenko, Irina I. Abnizova, Nathan Beka, Mikhail A. Genaev, Yuriy L. Orlov
BMC Genomics. 2018; 19(Suppl 3): 92. Published online 2018 Feb 9. doi: 10.1186/s12864-018-4475-6
Weizhi Song, Kerrin Steensen, Torsten Thomas
PeerJ. 2017; 5: e4015. Published online 2017 Nov 8. doi: 10.7717/peerj.4015
Haibao Tang, Ewen F. Kirkness, Christoph Lippert, William H. Biggs, Martin Fabani, Ernesto Guzman, Smriti Ramakrishnan, Victor Lavrenko, Boyko Kakaradov, Claire Hou, Barry Hicks, David Heckerman, Franz J. Och, C. Thomas Caskey, J. Craig Venter, Amalio Telenti
Am J Hum Genet. 2017 Nov 2; 101(5): 700–715. Published online 2017 Nov 2. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2017.09.013
Minh Duc Cao, Devika Ganesamoorthy, Chenxi Zhou, Lachlan J M Coin
Bioinformatics. 2018 Mar 1; 34(5): 873–874. Published online 2017 Oct 28. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btx691
Yair Motro, Jacob Moran-Gilad
Biomol Detect Quantif. 2017 Dec; 14: 1–6. Published online 2017 Oct 23. doi: 10.1016/j.bdq.2017.10.002
Jacquiline W Mugo, Ephifania Geza, Joel Defo, Samar S M Elsheikh, Gaston K Mazandu, Nicola J Mulder, Emile R Chimusa
Bioinformatics. 2017 Oct 1; 33(19): 2995–3002. Published online 2017 Jun 24. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btx369
Ryan R. Wick, Louise M. Judd, Claire L. Gorrie, Kathryn E. Holt
PLoS Comput Biol. 2017 Jun; 13(6): e1005595. Published online 2017 Jun 8. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005595
Chen Yang, Justin Chu, René L Warren, Inanç Birol
Gigascience. 2017 Apr; 6(4): 1–6. Published online 2017 Feb 24. doi: 10.1093/gigascience/gix010
Read Full Post »
2012pharmaceutical
Aashir Awan, Phd
Alan F. Kaul, PharmD., MS, MBA, FCCP
alexcrystal6
amnondanzig1724
anamikasarkar
apreconasia
aviralvatsa
David Orchard-Webb, PhD
danutdaagmailcom
Demet Sag, Ph.D., CRA, GCP
Dror Nir
evelinacohn
Gail S Thornton
Irina Robu
jdpmd
kellyperlman
Ed Kislauskis
larryhbern
lmulligan13gmailcom
marzankhan
megbaker58
pkandala
Rosalind Codrington, PhD
ritusaxena
Rick Mandahl
sjwilliamspa
stuartlpbi
Dr. Sudipta Saha
tildabarliya
zraviv06
zs22