Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Research
  • Open Access

CAMSA: a tool for comparative analysis and merging of scaffold assemblies

BMC BioinformaticsBMC series – open, inclusive and trusted201718(Suppl 15):496

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12859-017-1919-y

Published: 6 December 2017

Abstract

Background

Despite the recent progress in genome sequencing and assembly, many of the currently available assembled genomes come in a draft form. Such draft genomes consist of a large number of genomic fragments (scaffolds), whose positions and orientations along the genome are unknown. While there exists a number of methods for reconstruction of the genome from its scaffolds, utilizing various computational and wet-lab techniques, they often can produce only partial error-prone scaffold assemblies. It therefore becomes important to compare and merge scaffold assemblies produced by different methods, thus combining their advantages and highlighting present conflicts for further investigation. These tasks may be labor intensive if performed manually.

Results

We present CAMSA—a tool for comparative analysis and merging of two or more given scaffold assemblies. The tool (i) creates an extensive report with several comparative quality metrics; (ii) constructs the most confident merged scaffold assembly; and (iii) provides an interactive framework for a visual comparative analysis of the given assemblies. Among the CAMSA features, only scaffold merging can be evaluated in comparison to existing methods. Namely, it resembles the functionality of assembly reconciliation tools, although their primary targets are somewhat different. Our evaluations show that CAMSA produces merged assemblies of comparable or better quality than existing assembly reconciliation tools while being the fastest in terms of the total running time.

Conclusions

CAMSA addresses the current deficiency of tools for automated comparison and analysis of multiple assemblies of the same set scaffolds. Since there exist numerous methods and techniques for scaffold assembly, identifying similarities and dissimilarities across assemblies produced by different methods is beneficial both for the developers of scaffold assembly algorithms and for the researchers focused on improving draft assemblies of specific organisms.

Keywords

Genome assemblyAssembly reconciliationScaffoldingVisualizationBreakpoint graphGenome finishing

Background

While genome sequencing technologies are constantly evolving, researchers are still unable to read complete genomic sequences at once from organisms of interest. So, genome reading is usually done in multiple steps, which involve both in vitro and in silico methods. It starts with reading small genomic fragments, called reads, originating from unknown locations in the genome. Modern shotgun sequencing technologies can easily produce millions of reads. The problem then becomes to assemble them into the complete genome. Existing de novo genome assembly algorithms can usually assemble reads into longer genomic fragments, called contigs, that are typically interweaved in the genome with highly polymorphic and/or repetitive regions. The next step is to construct scaffolds, i.e., sequences of (oriented) contigs along the genome interspaced with gaps. The last but not least step is genome finishing that recovers genomic sequences inside the gaps within the scaffolds.

Unfortunately, the quality of scaffolds (e.g., exposing severe fragmentation) for many genomes makes the finishing step infeasible. As a result, the majority of currently available genomes come in a draft form represented by a large number of scaffolds rather than complete chromosomes [1]. This emphasizes the need for improving the assembly quality of genomes by constructing longer scaffolds from the given ones,1 which we refer to as the scaffold assembly problem. In other words, the scaffold assembly problem asks for reconstruction of the order of input scaffolds along the genome chromosomes.

A number of methods have been recently proposed to address the scaffold assembly problem by utilizing various types of additional information and/or in vitro experiments. These methods are based on jumping libraries [28], long error-prone reads (such as PacBio or MinION reads) [913], homology relationship between multiple genomes [1416], wet-lab experiments such as the fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) [17, 18], genome maps [1921], higher order chromatin interactions [22], and so on. Depending on the nature and accuracy of utilized information and techniques, assemblies produced by different methods may still be incomplete and contain errors, thus deviating from each other. Moreover, some scaffolding methods (e.g., based on FISH or HiC data) can produce assemblies, where the (strand-based) orientation of some assembled scaffolds is yet to be determined.

It therefore becomes crucial to determine what parts of different assemblies are consistent with and/or complement each other, and what parts are conflicting with other assemblies (or even within the same assembly). Furthermore, some scaffold assemblies may utilize only a fraction of the input scaffolds (e.g., homology-based assembly methods do not take into account unannotated scaffolds), thus posing a problem of analyzing and comparing assemblies of varying subsets of scaffolds. Comparative analysis of scaffold assemblies produced by different methods can help the researchers to combine their advantages, and highlight potential conflicts for further investigation. These tasks may be labor-intensive if performed manually.

While there exists a number of methods [2329] for reconciling multiple assemblies of the same organism, they all are limited only to oriented scaffolds and thus are inapplicable to scaffold assemblies that include unoriented scaffolds. Furthermore, some of these methods require a reference genome sequence, which is often unavailable for non-model organisms. On the other hand, reconciliation methods that operate in de-novo fashion often process the input assemblies progressively, which makes such methods sensitive to the order of the input assemblies and affects the quality of the reconciled assembly.

We present CAMSA, a tool for comparative analysis and de-novo merging of scaffold assemblies. CAMSA takes as an input two or more assemblies of the same set of scaffolds and generates a comprehensive comparative report for them. Input assemblies can include both oriented and unoriented scaffolds, which enables CAMSA to process assemblies from the full range of scaffolding techniques (both in silico and in vitro). The generated comparative report not only contains multiple numerical characteristics for the input assemblies, but also provides an interactive framework, allowing one to visually analyze and compare the input scaffold assemblies at regions of interest. CAMSA also computes a merged assembly, combining the input assemblies into a more comprehensive one that resolves conflicts and determines orientation of unoriented scaffolds in the most confident way. The non-progressive nature of merging in CAMSA eliminates the dependency on the order of input scaffold assemblies. We remark that CAMSA can be utilized at different stages of the genome assembly process and be applied to assemblies of various genomic fragments, ranging from contigs to superscaffolds. In particular, CAMSA input can include results of other assembly reconciliation methods.

Methods

Assembly analysis and visualization

For the purpose of comparative analysis and visualization of the input scaffold assemblies, CAMSA utilizes the breakpoint graphs, the data structure traditionally used for analysis of gene orders across multiple species [30]. We will refer to the breakpoint graph constructed on a set of scaffold assemblies as the scaffold assembly graph (SAG).

We start with the case of assemblies with no unoriented scaffolds. Then each assembly A can be viewed as a set of sequences of oriented scaffolds. We represent A as an individual scaffold assembly graph SAG(A) with two types of edges: directed edges (scaffold edges) encoding scaffolds in A, and undirected edges (assembly edges) representing scaffold adjacencies and connecting extremities (tails/heads) of the corresponding scaffold edges (Fig. 1 a, b, c).
Figure 1
Fig. 1

Individual scaffold assembly graphs for assemblies \(A_{1} = \left \{\left (\protect \overrightarrow {s_{1}}, \protect \overrightarrow {s_{3}}, \protect \overleftarrow {s_{4}}\right), (s_{2})\right \}\) (red edges), \(A_{2} = \left \{\left (\protect \overrightarrow {s_{1}}, \protect \overrightarrow {s_{2}}, \protect \overrightarrow {s_{3}}, s_{4}\right)\right \}\) (blue edges), and \(A_{3} = \left \{\left (\protect \overrightarrow {s_{1}}, \protect \overrightarrow {s_{2}}, s_{3}\right), (s_{4})\right \}\) (green edges), and their scaffold assembly graph SAG(A 1,A 2,A 3). Scaffold edges are colored black. Actual assembly edges are shown as solid, while candidate assembly edges are shown as dashed. a Individual scaffold assembly graph SAG(A 1). b Individual scaffold assembly graph SAG(A 2). c Individual scaffold assembly graph SAG(A 3). d Scaffold assembly graph SAG(A 1,A 2,A 3)

We find it convenient to refer to each assembly edge as an assembly point. Equivalently, an assembly point in A can be represented by an ordered pair of oriented scaffolds. We specify the orientation of a scaffold s, either by a sign (+s or −s) or by an overhead arrow (\(\protect \overrightarrow {s}\) or \(\protect \overleftarrow {s}\)). For example, \((\protect \overrightarrow {s_{1}}, \protect \overleftarrow {s_{2}})\) and \((\protect \overrightarrow {s_{2}}, \protect \overleftarrow {s_{1}})\) represent the same assembly point between scaffolds s 1 and s 2 following each other head-to-head. Clearly, any assembly is completely defined by the set of its assembly points.

To construct the scaffold assembly graph SAG(A 1,…,A k ) of input assemblies A 1,…,A k , we represent them as individual graphs SAG(A 1),…,SAG(A k ), where the undirected edges in each SAG(A i ) are colored into unique color. Then the graph SAG(A 1,…,A k ) can be viewed as the superposition of individual graphs SAG(A 1),…,SAG(A k ) and can be obtained by gluing the identically labeled directed edges. So the graph SAG(A 1,…,A k ) consists of (directed, labeled) scaffold edges encoding scaffolds and (undirected, unlabeled) assembly edges of k colors encoding assembly points in different input assemblies (Fig. 1 d). We will refer to edges of color A i (i.e., coming from SAG(A i )) as A i -edges. The assembly edges connecting the same two vertices x and y form the multiedge {x,y} in SAG(A 1,…,A k ). The multicolor of {x,y} is defined as the union of the colors of individual edges connecting x and y.

We define the (ordinary) degree odeg(x) of a vertex x in SAG(A 1,…,A k ) as the number of assembly edges incident to x. We distinguish it from the multidegree mdeg(x) defined as the number of adjacent vertices that are connected to x with assembly edges.

When all assemblies A 1,…,A k agree on a particular assembly point {x,y}, the graph SAG(A 1,…,A k ) contains a multi-edge {x,y} composed of edges of all k different colors. In other words, both vertices x and y in this case have degree k and multidegree 1. For a vertex z in SAG(A 1,…,A k ), odeg(z)≠k or mdeg(z)≠1 indicate some type of inconsistency between the assemblies.

For given scaffold assemblies A 1,…,A n , we classify an individual assembly point pA i representing an A i -edge {x,y} in SAG(A 1,…,A k ) as follows:
  • unique if the multicolor of {x,y} is {A i }, i.e., the assembly point p is present only in a single assembly;

  • conflicting with an assembly point cA j if c represents an assembly edge {x,z} with zy (i.e., mdeg(x)>1), or an assembly edge {y,z} with zx (i.e., mdeg(y)>1). In particular, p is
    • in-conflicting with c if i=j (Fig. 2 c);

    • out-conflicting with c if ij (Fig. 2 a).2

  • non-conflicting if p is not conflicting with any other assembly points.
    Figure 2
    Fig. 2

    Illustration of various conflicts between assembly points of assemblies A 1 (red edges) and A 2 (blue edges). a Assembly points \(\left (\protect \overrightarrow {s_{1}}, \protect \overrightarrow {s_{2}}\right)\) from assembly A 1 and \(\left (\protect \overrightarrow {s_{1}}, \protect \overrightarrow {s_{3}}\right)\) from assembly A 2 are out-conflicting. b Assembly points \(\left (s_{1}, \protect \overrightarrow {s_{2}}\right)\) from A 1 and \(\left (\protect \overrightarrow {s_{1}}, \protect \overrightarrow {s_{2}}\right)\) from A 2 are out-semiconflicting. c Assembly points \(\left (\protect \overrightarrow {s_{1}}, \protect \overrightarrow {s_{2}}\right)\) and \(\left (\protect \overrightarrow {s_{2}}, \protect \overrightarrow {s_{3}}\right)\) both from A 1 are in-conflicting. d assembly points \(\left (s_{1}, \protect \overrightarrow {s_{2}}\right)\) and \(\left (\protect \overrightarrow {s_{1}}, \protect \overrightarrow {s_{2}}\right)\) both from A 1 are in-semiconflicting

We say that an assembly point is in-/out- conflicting if it is in-/out- conflicting with at least one other assembly point.

Dealing with Unoriented scaffolds

While conventional multiple breakpoint graphs are constructed for sequences of oriented genes, in CAMSA we extend scaffold assembly graphs to support assemblies that may include oriented as well as unoriented scaffolds.

In addition to (oriented) assembly points formed by pairs of oriented scaffolds, we now consider semi-oriented and unoriented assembly points.

A semi-oriented assembly point represents an adjacency between an oriented scaffold and an unoriented one. For example, \((\protect \overleftarrow {s_{1}},s_{2})\) and \((s_{2},\protect \overrightarrow {s_{1}})\) denote the same semi-oriented assembly point, where scaffold s 1 is oriented and s 2 is not (as emphasized by a missing overhead arrow). Similarly, an unoriented assembly point represents an adjacency between two unoriented scaffolds. For example, (s 1,s 2) and (s 2,s 1) denote the same unoriented assembly point between unoriented scaffolds s 1 and s 2.

We define a realization of an assembly point p as any oriented assembly point that can be obtained from p by orienting unoriented scaffolds. We denote the set of realizations of p as R(p). If p is oriented, then it has a single realization equal to p itself (i.e., R(p)={p}); if p is semi-oriented, then it has two realizations (i.e., |R(p)|=2); and if p is unoriented, then it has four realizations (i.e., |R(p)|=4). For example,
$$R\left((s_{1},s_{2})\right) = \left\{ (\protect\overleftarrow{s_{1}},\protect\overleftarrow{s_{2}}), (\protect\overleftarrow{s_{1}},\protect\overrightarrow{s_{2}}), (\protect\overrightarrow{s_{1}},\protect\overleftarrow{s_{2}}), (\protect\overrightarrow{s_{1}},\protect\overrightarrow{s_{2}}) \right\}. $$

In the scaffold assembly graph, we add assembly edges encoding all realizations of semi-/un- oriented assembly points and refer to such edges as candidate, in contrast to actual assembly edges encoding oriented assembly points.

We extend the conflictedness classification to semi-oriented and unoriented assembly points as follows. An assembly point p is in-conflicting (out-confliciting) with an assembly point c if all pairs of their realizations {p ,c }R(pR(c) are in-conflicting (out-confliciting). Similarly, an assembly point p is in-semiconflicting (out-semiconfliciting) with an assembly point c if some but not all pairs of their realizations are in-conflicting (out-confliciting) (Fig. 2 b, d). It is easy to see that for the case of all assembly points being oriented, this definition is consistent with the one given in the previous section.

Merging assemblies

CAMSA can resolve conflicts in the input assemblies by merging them into a single (not self-confliciting) merged assembly that is most consistent with the input ones. The merged assembly is also used to determine orientation of (some) unoriented scaffolds in one input assemblies that is most confident and/or consistent with other input assemblies. In other words, the merged assembly helps to identify realizations of (some) semi-/un- oriented assembly points that are most consistent with other assemblies. Namely, for each semi-/un- oriented assembly point, the merged assembly contains either only one or none of its realizations; and in the former case, the included realization defines the most confident orientation of the corresponding unoriented scaffolds.

Assembly merging performed by CAMSA is based on how often each assembly point appears in the input assemblies as well as on the (optional) confidence of each such appearance. Namely, for each assembly point p in an input assembly A, CAMSA allows to specify the confidence weight CW A (p) from the interval [ 0,1], which is then assigned to the corresponding assembly edge(s) (Fig. 3 a). The confidence weights are expected to reflect the confidence level of the assembly methods in what they report as scaffold adjacencies (e.g., heuristic methods should probably have smaller confidence as compared to more reliable wet-lab techniques). By default, all actual assembly edges have the confidence weight equal 1, and all candidate assembly edges have weight 0.75 (these default values can be overwritten by the user).
Figure 3
Fig. 3

a Scaffold assembly graph SAG(A 1,A 2,A 3), where assemblies A 1, A 2, and A 3 are represented as red, blue, and green assembly edges, respectively, labeled with the corresponding confidence weights. b Merged scaffold assembly graph MSAG(A 1,A 2,A 3) obtained from SAG(A 1,A 2,A 3) by replacing each assembly multi-edge with an ordinary edge of combined weight. The bold assembly edges represent the merged assembly computed by CAMSA

For any oriented assembly B (viewed as a set of oriented assembly points), we define the consistency score CS B (A) of an input assembly A with respect to B as CS B (A)\( = \sum _{p\in B} \overline {\textsc {cw}}_{A}(p)\), where
$$\overline{\textsc{cw}}_{A}(p) = \left\{\begin{array}{ll} 0,&\ \text{if}\ \forall\ x\in A\ :\ p\not\in R(x); \\ \textsc{cw}_{A}(x),&\ \text{if}\ \exists\ x\in A\ :\ p\in R(x). \end{array}\right. $$
We pose the assembly merging problem (AMP) as follows.

Problem 1

(Assembly Merging Problem, AMP) Given assemblies A 1,…,A k of the same set of scaffolds S, find an assembly M of S containing only oriented assembly points such that (i) M is not self-conflicting (i.e., does not contain any in-conflicting assembly points); (ii) \(\sum _{i=1}^{k} \textsc {cs}_{M}(A_{i})\) is maximized; (iii) for every assembly point pA 1A k , at most one of its realizations is present in M (i.e., |MR(p)|≤1).

For a solution M to the AMP, the condition (i) implies that the assembly edges in SAG(M) form a matching. Furthermore, M is assumed to correspond to the genome, which may be subject to additional constraints such as having all chromosomes linear (e.g., for vertebrate genomes) or having a single chromosome (e.g., for bacterial genomes). These constraints are translated for M as the absence in SAG(M) of cycles formed by alternating assembly and scaffold edges (for a unichromosomal circular genome, such a cycle can be present in SAG(M) only if it includes all scaffold edges).

To address the AMP, we start with construction of the (weighted) merged scaffold assembly graph MSAG(A 1,…,A k ) from SAG(A 1,…,A k ) by replacing each assembly multi-edge with an ordinary assembly edge of the weight equal the total weight of the corresponding multi-edge (Fig. 3). So, MSAG(A 1,…,A k ) is the graph with two types of edges: unweighted directed scaffolds edges and weighted undirected assembly edges. The AMP is then can be reformulated as the following restricted maximum matching problem (RMMP) on the graph G=MSAG(A 1,…,A k ):

Problem 2

(Restricted Maximum Matching Problem, RMMP) Given a merged scaffold assembly graph G, find a subset M of assembly edges in G such that (i) M is a matching; (ii) M has maximum weight; (iii) there are no cycles in SAG(M).

Let M be a solution to the RMMP. Then the graph SAG(M) consists of scaffold edges forming a perfect matching and assembly edges from M forming a (possibly non-perfect) matching by the condition (i). Thus SAG(M) is formed by collection of paths and cycles, whose edges alternate between scaffold and assembly edges. Furthermore, by the condition (iii), SAG(M) consists entirely of alternating paths. A similar optimization problem, where the number of paths and the number cycles in the resulting SAG(M) are fixed, is known to be NP-complete [31], leaving a little hope for the RMMP to have a polynomial-time solution. Instead, CAMSA employs two merging heuristic solutions building upon the previously proposed algorithms [31, 32] as described below in this section.

Greedy merging heuristics. For a given merged scaffold assembly graph G, this strategy starts with the graph H consisting of scaffold edges from G and then iteratively enriches H with assembly edges so that no cycles are created in H. At any stage of this process, H is considered as a collection of alternating paths, some of which are merged into a longer path by adding a corresponding assembly edge. The paths to merge are selected based on the confidence weight of their linking assembly edge. The final graph H constructed this way defines M as the set of assembly edges in H (and so SAG(M)=H).

Maximum matching heuristics. For a given merged scaffold assembly graph G, this first computes the maximum weighted matching M formed by assembly edges of G. Namely, CAMSA employs the NetworkX library [33] implementation of the blossom algorithm [34] for computing M .3 For the maximum weighted matching M , CAMSA looks for cycles in SAG(M ) (notice that all cycles in SAG(M ) are vertex-disjoint) and removes an assembly edge of the lowest confidence weight from each such cycle. These edges are also removed from M to form M so that SAG(M) consists entirely of alternating paths.

We remark that before solving the RMMP for G=MSAG(A 1,…,A k ), CAMSA allows to remove assembly edges from G that have weight smaller than the weight threshold specified by the user (by default, this threshold is set to 0, i.e., no edges are removed). The removal of small-weighted assembly edges may be desirable if one wants to restrict attention only to assembly points of certain confidence level (e.g., assembly points coming either from individual highly-reliable assemblies or as a consensus from multiple assemblies). When such removal of low-confidence edges is performed, it is important to do so before (not after) solving the RMMP, since otherwise these edges may introduce a bias for an inclusion of high-confidence edges into the merged assembly M.

Results

Structure of CAMSA report

The results of comparative analysis and assembly merging performed by CAMSA are presented to the user in the form of an interactive report. The report is generated in a form of a JavaScript-powered HTML file, readily accessible for viewing/working in any modern Internet browser (for locally generated reports, Internet connection is not required). Many of the report sections are also available in the form of text files, making them accessible for machine processing. All tables in the report are powered by the DataTables JavaScript library [35], which provides flexible and dynamic filtering, sorting, and searching capabilities.

The first section of the CAMSA report presents aggregated characteristics of each input assemblies as compared to the others:
  • the number of oriented, semi-oriented, and unoriented assembly points;

  • the number of in-/out- conflicting assembly points;

  • the number of in-/out- semiconflicting assembly points;

  • the number of nonconflicting assembly points;

  • the number of assembly points that participate in the merged assembly.

The second section of the CAMSA report focuses on consistency across various subsets of input assemblies. For each subset, it gives characteristics similar to the ones in the first section, but the values here are aggregated over all assemblies in the subset. The subsets are listed as a bar diagram in the descending order of the number of unique assembly points they contain (Fig. 4). Such statistics eliminates the need of running CAMSA separately on any assemblies subsets and allows the user to easily identify groups of assemblies that agree/conflict among themselves the most. We remark that each assembly point is counted only once: for the set of assemblies that contains this assembly point (but not for any of its smaller subset). Since the the number of all subsets of input assemblies can be large, CAMSA allows the user to specify the number of top subsets to be displayed.
Figure 4
Fig. 4

The second section of the CAMSA report for the scaffold assemblies of H. sapiens Chr14 produced by ScaffMatch (A1), SGA (A2), SOAPdenovo2 (A3), and SSPACE (A4). For each subset of the assemblies A1, A2, A3, and A4, it gives the number of assembly points that are unique to this subset; participate in the merged assembly; are in-conflicting; and are in-semiconflicting

The third section of the CAMSA report provides statistics for each assembly point within each assembly. Extensive interactive filtering allows the user to select assembly points of interest, as well as to export the filtered results, creating problem- / region- / fragment- focused analysis pipelines. We remark that statistical characteristics (e.g., whether an assembly point is in-/out- conflicting or in-/out- semiconflicting) are computed with respect to all of the assembly points in all input assemblies.

The fourth section of the CAMSA report provides statistics for each assembly point aggregated over all of the input assemblies (Fig. 5). In contrast to the third section, here each assembly point is shown exactly once, and the sources column shows the set of assemblies where this assembly point is present (e.g., in Fig. 5 the assembly point \((\protect \overrightarrow {\texttt {contig\_16}}, \protect \overrightarrow {\texttt {contig\_17}})\) is present in A1, A2, and A3). Again, CAMSA provides extensive filtering to enable a focused analysis of assembly points of interest. The result of assembly points filtration can further be exported in the same format, which is utilized for CAMSA input files (i.e., list of assembly points in a tab-separated format).
Figure 5
Fig. 5

The fourth section of the CAMSA report for the scaffold assemblies of S. aureus produced by ScaffMatch (A1), SGA (A2), SOAPdenovo2 (A3), and SSPACE (A4). a Table resulting from filtration and containing only assembly points involving scaffold contig_17. b A subgraph of the scaffold assembly graph SAG(A1,A2,A3,A4) induced by the assembly points involving scaffold contig_17

Besides the text-based representation and export, the CAMSA report also provides an interactive visualization and further graphical export of assembly points in the form of the scaffold assembly graph. A vector-based interactive graph visualization is created using the Cytoscape.js library [36]. This visualization has a dynamic graph layout and supports filtration of graph components. We allow the user to choose from several Cytoscape.js graph layouts; the default layout comes from [37]. At any point the current image of the scaffold assembly graph can be exported from the report into a PNG file.

The time required for graph visualization heavily depends on the chosen layout and the underlying graph complexity. In cases when visualization inside the report takes too much time, we provide the following workarounds. The assembly points can be exported in a text file and then converted into a DOT file describing the corresponding scaffold assembly graph, whose visualization then can be constructed with GraphViz [38]. Alternatively, one can choose to export the SAG subgraph induced by the filtered assembly points into a JSON file, which can further be processed with the desktop Cytoscape software [39].

Evaluation

While merging of multiple input scaffold assemblies is just one of the features of the CAMSA framework, it is the only one that resembles existing tools, namely those performing assembly reconciliation. We therefore feel obliged to compare its performance to such tools, even though we pose CAMSA as a meta-tool that can take as an input the results of various scaffolding methods, including assembly reconciliation tools.

We evaluated the assembly merging in CAMSA by running it on multiple scaffold assemblies of genomes of different sizes from the GAGE project [40]. While CAMSA can be used at any stage of genome scaffolding, in this evaluation we applied it to the results of initial scaffolding of contigs based on jumping libraries. We chose the following four scaffolders for performing such task: ScaffMatch [41], SOAPdenovo2 [6], SGA [42], and SSPACE [8]. The input to these scaffolders was formed by contigs and jumping libraries assembled and corrected by Allpaths-LG [43], which are provided by GAGE. The scaffold assemblies produced by these scaffolders were used as an input to CAMSA as well as to Metassembler [28] and GAM-NGS [29] assembly reconciliation tools.4 To demonstrate the advantages of CAMSA as a meta-tool, we also run it on the four aforementioned scaffold assemblies combined with the two reconciled assemblies produced by Metassembler and GAM-NGS, and denoted as CAMSA(+GM) in the evaluation results.

All tools were run on the same computer system with dual Intel Xeon E5-2670 2.6GHz 8-core processors and 64GB of RAM. First, we measured the running time of each tool. Then we assessed the quality of the resulting scaffold assemblies (formed by merged scaffolds) with the number of metrics computed by QUAST [44] with --scaffolds flag. Below we present most important metrics, while the complete QUAST reports for both input (Additional file 1: Tables S6, S7, S8) and resulting scaffold assemblies (Additional file 1: Tables S9, S10, S11) are provided in Additional file 1. Namely, we mostly consider the following QUAST metrics:
  • # contigs: in our evaluation, the contigs counted by QUAST correspond the merged scaffolds; so their number measures the contiguity of the resulting scaffold assemblies.

  • # misassemblies (miss.): number of breakpoints in the merged scaffolds, for which the left and right flanking sequences align in the reference genome to different strands / chromosomes (inversions / translocations), or on the same stand and chromosome with a gap of ≥ 1000bp between each other (relocations).

  • # local misassemblies (local miss.): number of relocations with a gap in the range from 85bp to 1000bp.

  • NA50: the maximum length L such that the fragments of length ≥L obtained from the merged scaffolds by breaking them at misassembly sites cover at least 50% of assembly.

  • NA75: similar to NA50, but with 75% coverage of the assembly.

Table 1 demonstrates that CAMSA is the fastest among the tools in comparison. We separately benchmarked the data preparation and processing. We remark that depending on the format of input scaffold assemblies as well as the overall assembly pipeline, the data preparation step may be not required or take significantly different time. For CAMSA in this evaluation data preparation involves the conversion of scaffold assemblies from FASTA format into the set of assembly points,5 using a utility script based on NUCmer software [45] ran in parallel for each of the input assemblies. For GAM-NGS, one needs to align the jumping libraries onto the input scaffold assemblies as well as onto the intermediate reconciled assemblies (progressively generated from the input assemblies). The former alignments were treated as data preparation (since they may be readily available from the assembly pipeline), while the latter alignments are generally unavailable and thus were treated as data processing. For Metassembler, no data preparation was required since all alignments are performed internally.
Table 1

Running time of GAM-NGS, Metassembler, and CAMSA on scaffold assemblies produced by ScaffMatch, SOAPdenovo2, SGA, and SSPACE on three GAGE datasets

 

S. aureus

R. sphaeroides

H. sapiens Chr14

GAM-NGS

4m25s (+2m3s)

8m47s (+4m14s)

1h29m (+43m)

Metassembler

59m16s (+0s)

1h48m53s (+0s)

8h19m10s (+0s)

CAMSA

2s (+3s)

2s (+10s)

48s (+59m)

CAMSA(+GM)

2s (+3s)

2s (+10s)

54s (+1h10m)

Time in parentheses is additional and corresponds to the data preparation. Best results are shown in bold

Table 2 shows the quality of the scaffold assemblies produced by different tools. In all datasets, the assembly produced by CAMSA was either the best or very close to the best in each of the metrics. We remark that in some cases CAMSA(+GM) takes advantage of the reconciled assemblies and demonstrates better results than CAMSA. In other cases, however, having the reconciled assemblies turns out to be disadvantageous due to the elevated presence of misassemblies in them. This emphasizes the fact that assembly reconciliation/merging is sensitive to the quality of input assemblies and should be interpreted with caution. The comparative report in CAMSA can greatly help in identification of conflicting assembly points (indicating potential misassemblies), enabling their targeted analysis.
Table 2

Quality of the reconciled/merged scaffold assemblies constructed by GAM-NGS, Metassembler, and CAMSA from the scaffold assemblies produced by ScaffMatch, SOAPdenovo2, SGA, and SSPACE on three GAGE datasets

 

# contigs

# miss.

# local miss.

NA50

NA75

S. aureus

 

  GAM-NGS

6

0

6

1082860

1082860

  Metassembler

6

0

3

1083010

1083010

  CAMSA

6

0

3

1083448

1083448

  CAMSA(+GM)

6

0

2

1083436

1083436

R. sphaeroides

 

  GAM-NGS

16

6

17

3080645

3080645

  Metassembler

9

6

17

3080845

3080845

CAMSA

9

6

9

2965313

2965313

CAMSA(+GM)

10

6

9

2964450

2964450

H. sapiens Chr14

 

  GAM-NGS

128

83

543

2941846

1235019

  Metassembler

93

94

528

2494911

1235460

CAMSA

109

91

485

2624904

1235471

CAMSA(+GM)

94

84

511

2979834

1235464

Best results are shown in bold

Discussion

We remark that CAMSA expects as an input a list of assembly points, which differs from the output produced by some conventional scaffolding tools. This inspired us to develop a set of utility scripts that automate the input/output conversion process for CAMSA (e.g., from/to formats like FASTA,6 AGPv2, or GRIMM), and include them in the CAMSA package. We remark that our current model treats scaffolds that are present more than once in the input assembly as conflicts, thus limiting the ability to work with scaffolds coming from repetitive DNA regions. However, this issue may rarely appear for long scaffolds, and in fact we did not encounter it in our evaluations. Still, we have plans to expand the model and add support for repetitive scaffolds in future CAMSA releases.

We further plan to enrich the graph-based analysis in CAMSA with various pattern matching techniques, enabling a better classification of assembly conflicts based on their origin (e.g., conflicting scaffold orders, wrong orientation of scaffolds, or different resolution of assemblies). We also plan on adding a reference mode, so that classification of assembly points in the input assemblies can be done with respect to a known reference genome, rather than just with respect to each other.

Conclusion

CAMSA addresses the current deficiency of tools for automated comparison and analysis of multiple assemblies of the same set scaffolds. Since there exist numerous methods and techniques for scaffold assembly, identifying similarities and dissimilarities across assemblies produced by different methods is beneficial both for the developers of scaffold assembly algorithms and for the researchers focused on improving draft assemblies of specific organisms.

CAMSA is currently utilized in the study of Anopheles mosquito genomes [46], where multiple research laboratories work on improving the existing assemblies for a set of mosquito species.

Endnotes

1 We remark that contigs can be viewed as scaffolds with no gaps. So, under scaffolds we understand both contigs and scaffolds.

2 We remark that an assembly point can be in/out-conflicting with multiple different assembly points at the same time.

3 The blossom algorithm computes a maximal weighted matching in a graph in O(V 3) time, where V is the number of vertices.

4 We also considered GARM [27], but were unable to run it on any GAGE dataset, facing issues similar to those reported in [28].

5 We remark that conversion, for example, from NCBI AGPv2 format (rather than FASTA) would be much faster.

6 We support FASTA files that may or may not contain gap filling.

Declarations

Funding

The work and publication costs are funded by the National Science Foundation under the grant No. IIS-1462107.

Availability of data and materials

CAMSA is distributed under the MIT license and is available at http://cblab.org/camsa/. All utilized datasets are publicly available as specified in Additional file 1.

About this supplement

This article has been published as part of BMC Bioinformatics Volume 18 Supplement 15, 2017: Selected articles from the 6th IEEE International Conference on Computational Advances in Bio and Medical Sciences (ICCABS): bioinformatics. The full contents of the supplement are available online at https://bmcbioinformatics.biomedcentral.com/articles/supplements/volume-18-supplement-15.

Authors’ contributions

The authors have contributed equally to preparation of the present manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver(http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Princeton University, Princeton, USA
(2)
ITMO University, St. Petersburg, Russia
(3)
The George Washington University, Ashburn, USA

References

  1. Reddy T, Thomas AD, Stamatis D, Bertsch J, Isbandi M, Jansson J, Mallajosyula J, Pagani I, Lobos EA, Kyrpides NC. The Genomes OnLine Database (GOLD) v.5: a metadata management system based on a four level (meta)genome project classification. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015; 43(D1):1099–106.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Hunt M, Newbold C, Berriman M, Otto TD. A comprehensive evaluation of assembly scaffolding tools. Genome Biol. 2014; 15(3):1–15.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Simpson JT, Wong K, Jackman SD, Schein JE, Jones SJ, Birol I. ABySS: a parallel assembler for short read sequence data. Genome Res. 2009; 19(6):1117–23.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Koren S, Treangen TJ, Pop M. Bambus 2: scaffolding metagenomes. Bioinformatics. 2011; 27(21):2964–71.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Gritsenko AA, Nijkamp JF, Reinders MJ, de Ridder D. GRASS: a generic algorithm for scaffolding next-generation sequencing assemblies. Bioinformatics. 2012; 28(11):1429–37.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Luo R, Liu B, Xie Y, Li Z, Huang W, Yuan J, He G, Chen Y, Pan Q, Liu Y, et al. SOAPdenovo2: an empirically improved memory-efficient short-read de novo assembler. GigaScience. 2012; 1:18.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Dayarian A, Michael TP, Sengupta AM. SOPRA: Scaffolding algorithm for paired reads via statistical optimization. BMC Bioinformatics. 2010; 11:345.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Boetzer M, Henkel CV, Jansen HJ, Butler D, Pirovano W. Scaffolding pre-assembled contigs using SSPACE. Bioinformatics. 2011; 27(4):578–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Warren RL, Yang C, Vandervalk BP, Behsaz B, Lagman A, Jones SJ, Birol I. LINKS: Scalable, alignment-free scaffolding of draft genomes with long reads. GigaScience. 2015; 4:35.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Bankevich A, Nurk S, Antipov D, Gurevich AA, Dvorkin M, Kulikov AS, Lesin VM, Nikolenko SI, Pham S, Prjibelski AD, et al. SPAdes: a new genome assembly algorithm and its applications to single-cell sequencing. J Comput Biol. 2012; 19(5):455–77.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Bashir A, Klammer AA, Robins WP, Chin CS, Webster D, Paxinos E, Hsu D, Ashby M, Wang S, Peluso P, et al. A hybrid approach for the automated finishing of bacterial genomes. Nat Biotechnol. 2012; 30(7):701–7.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Boetzer M, Pirovano W. SSPACE-LongRead: scaffolding bacterial draft genomes using long read sequence information. BMC Bioinformatics. 2014; 15:211.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Lam KK, LaButti K, Khalak A, Tse D. FinisherSC: a repeat-aware tool for upgrading de novo assembly using long reads. Bioinformatics. 2015; 31(19):3207–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Assour L, Emrich S. Multi-genome synteny for assembly improvement. In: Proceedings of 7th International Conference on Bioinformatics and Computational Biology. Honolulu: International Society for Computers and their Applications (ISCA): 2015. p. 193–9.Google Scholar
  15. Aganezov S, Alekseyev MA. Multi-Genome Scaffold Co-Assembly Based on the Analysis of Gene Orders and Genomic Repeats In: Bourgeois A, et al, editors. Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Bioinformatics Research and Applications (ISBRA). Lecture Notes in Computer Science: 2016. p. 237–49. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-38782-6_20.
  16. Anselmetti Y, Berry V, Chauve C, Chateau A, Tannier E, Bérard S. Ancestral gene synteny reconstruction improves extant species scaffolding. BMC Genomics. 2015; 16:1–13.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Rudkin GT, Stollar B. High resolution detection of DNA–RNA hybrids in situ by indirect immunofluorescence. Nature. 1977; 265:472. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/265472a0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Speicher MR, Carter NP. The new cytogenetics: blurring the boundaries with molecular biology. Nat Rev Genet. 2005; 6(10):782–92.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Nagarajan N, Read TD, Pop M. Scaffolding and validation of bacterial genome assemblies using optical restriction maps. Bioinformatics. 2008; 24(10):1229–35.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Tang H, Zhang X, Miao C, Zhang J, Ming R, Schnable JC, Schnable PS, Lyons E, Lu J. ALLMAPS: robust scaffold ordering based on multiple maps. Genome Biol. 2015; 16:3.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Madoui MA, Dossat C, d’Agata L, van Oeveren J, van der Vossen E, Aury JM. MaGuS: a tool for quality assessment and scaffolding of genome assemblies with Whole Genome Profiling™Data. BMC Bioinformatics. 2016; 17:115.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Burton JN, Adey A, Patwardhan RP, Qiu R, Kitzman JO, Shendure J. Chromosome-scale scaffolding of de novo genome assemblies based on chromatin interactions. Nat Biotechnol. 2013; 31(12):1119–25.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Yao G, Ye L, Gao H, Minx P, Warren WC, Weinstock GM. Graph accordance of next-generation sequence assemblies. Bioinformatics. 2012; 28(1):13–16.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Zimin AV, Smith DR, Sutton G, Yorke JA. Assembly reconciliation. Bioinformatics. 2008; 24(1):42–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Nijkamp J, Winterbach W, Van den Broek M, Daran JM, Reinders M, De Ridder D. Integrating genome assemblies with MAIA. Bioinformatics. 2010; 26(18):433–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Vezzi F, Cattonaro F, Policriti A. e-RGA: enhanced reference guided assembly of complex genomes. EMBnet.J. 2011; 17(1):46–54.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Mayela Soto-Jimenez L, Estrada K, Sanchez-Flores A. GARM: genome assembly, reconciliation and merging pipeline. Curr Top Med Chem. 2014; 14(3):418–24.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Wences AH, Schatz MC. Metassembler: merging and optimizing de novo genome assemblies. Genome Biol. 2015; 16:207.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Vicedomini R, Vezzi F, Scalabrin S, Arvestad L, Policriti A. GAM-NGS: genomic assemblies merger for next generation sequencing. BMC Bioinformatics. 2013; 14(Suppl 7):6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Avdeyev P, Jiang S, Aganezov S, Hu F, Alekseyev MA. Reconstruction of ancestral genomes in presence of gene gain and loss. J Comput Biol. 2016; 23(3):1–15.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Chateau A, Giroudeau R. A complexity and approximation framework for the maximization scaffolding problem. Theor Comput Sci. 2015; 595:92–106.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Moran S, Newman I, Wolfstahl Y. Approximation algorithms for covering a graph by vertex-disjoint paths of maximum total weight. Networks. 1990; 20(1):55–64.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Hagberg AA, Schult DA, Swart PJ. Exploring network structure, dynamics, and function using NetworkX. In: Proceedings of the 7th Python in Science Conference (SciPy2008). Pasadena: Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL): 2008. p. 11–15.Google Scholar
  34. Galil Z. Efficient algorithms for finding maximum matching in graphs. ACM Comput Surv (CSUR). 1986; 18(1):23–38.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Jardine A. DataTables JavaScript / JQuery library. 2011. https://datatables.net. Accessed 13 Jun 2016.
  36. Franz M, Lopes CT, Huck G, Dong Y, Sumer O, Bader GD. Cytoscape.js: a graph theory library for visualisation and analysis. Bioinformatics. 2016; 32(2):309–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Dogrusoz U, Giral E, Cetintas A, Civril A, Demir E. A layout algorithm for undirected compound graphs. Inf Sci. 2009; 179(7):980–94.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Gansner ER, North SC. An open graph visualization system and its applications to software engineering. Softw Pract Experience. 2000; 30(11):1203–33.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Shannon P, Markiel A, Ozier O, Baliga NS, Wang JT, Ramage D, Amin N, Schwikowski B, Ideker T. Cytoscape: a software environment for integrated models of biomolecular interaction networks. Genome Res. 2003; 13(11):2498–504.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Salzberg SL, Phillippy AM, Zimin A, Puiu D, Magoc T, Koren S, Treangen TJ, Schatz MC, Delcher AL, Roberts M, et al. GAGE: A critical evaluation of genome assemblies and assembly algorithms. Genome Res. 2012; 22(3):557–67.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Mandric I, Zelikovsky A. ScaffMatch: scaffolding algorithm based on maximum weight matching. Bioinformatics. 2015; 31(16):2632–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Simpson JT, Durbin R. Efficient de novo assembly of large genomes using compressed data structures. Genome Res. 2012; 22(3):549–56.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Gnerre S, MacCallum I, Przybylski D, Ribeiro FJ, Burton JN, Walker BJ, Sharpe T, Hall G, Shea TP, Sykes S, et al. High-quality draft assemblies of mammalian genomes from massively parallel sequence data. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2011; 108(4):1513–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Gurevich A, Saveliev V, Vyahhi N, Tesler G. QUAST: quality assessment tool for genome assemblies. Bioinformatics. 2013; 29(8):1072–5.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Kurtz S, Phillippy A, Delcher AL, Smoot M, Shumway M, Antonescu C, Salzberg SL. Versatile and open software for comparing large genomes. Genome Biol. 2004; 5(2):12.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  46. Neafsey DE, Waterhouse RM, Abai MR, Aganezov SS, Alekseyev MA, et al. Highly evolvable malaria vectors: the genomes of 16 Anopheles mosquitoes. Science. 2015; 347(6217):1258522. doi:10.1126/science.1258522.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s) 2017

Advertisement