Total duplications and inversions between the homologous chromosomes of an haplotype-phased genome assembly about mumandco

[SAMtoBAM]

Ok so that confirms what I was saying, that duplications only detect expansions within the query and not contractions.
Although I could technically invert the detection using the reciprocal alignment and find contractions...If I tried this modification would you like to try run it? and see if you find the alternate events either side?

Hmmm this inversion result is more worrying
It will most likely be due to the filtering process which gets rid of a lot of false positives due to the mapping of repetitive regions.
it requires that during the nucmer alignment filtering to find the global alignment, that in the absence of the inverted alignment found in the less strictly filtered alignment, that no other alignments can be found in this region. So perhaps it is because they are in repetitive regions?
Maybe it is currently a little strict when it comes to large inversions and could be relaxed a little more...
The difference is the sizes between the two genomes would most likely be as you said due to the differences in the haplotypes in these regions and/or obscurity in mapping at the boarders of the inversion, due to again repetitive regions. This later case is not unlikely considering inversion commonly form with repetitive material.
Let me know how the dotplots look for these inversions

Have a good day!

[SAMtoBAM]

Hi Gabriele,

Thanks for using MUM&Co
For duplications:
Technically that is how it should function, the duplications are to be from haplotype1. MUM&Co doesn't predict 'expansions' and 'contractions' so duplications only are the addition of material in the query. It some cases the contractions would appear as deletions but I cannot be too sure how it will respond in all cases.
Interestingly, now I am writing this, there isn't any reason why I could not find the opposite and look for expansion. Might add this as a feature.
The co-oridnates for the query chromosome positions of duplications can vary in accuracy I have noticed. Do you find this an issue?

Regarding inversions: correct again, any position in the opposite orientation would appear regardless of which haplotype is the query or the reference

Assuming all the chromosomes are highly co-linear, running one at a time should be ok however in most cases I would recommend running the whole genome vs whole genome.

Did you have a look at my pipeline for the phased haplotype assembly? I hope it can be of help.

Hope that helps

[uceleste]

Thanks for the quick reply.
As mentioned above, for duplications I performed the same process using haplotype2-chr1 as query and haplotype1-chr1 as reference (so inverting them). The results are reported below.

ref_chr	query_chr	ref_start	ref_stop	size	SV_type	query_start	query_stop		ref_chr	query_chr	ref_start	ref_stop	size	SV_type	query_start	query_stop
chr1	chr1	1349462	1349653	191	duplication	1725124	1725127		chr1	chr1	4794578	4890703	96125	duplication	2549810	2549811
chr1	chr1	1678135	1682964	4829	duplication	1377849	1377851		chr1	chr1	6419492	6432519	13027	duplication	7035943	7193751
chr1	chr1	3156729	3186550	29821	duplication	4085015	4085016		chr1	chr1	11599672	12011191	411519	duplication	12790274	12790275
chr1	chr1	11331514	11384802	53288	duplication	10232990	10232990		chr1	chr1	13854641	13854779	138	duplication	14990751	14990787
chr1	chr1	11783930	11820088	36158	duplication	11051724	11051725		chr1	chr1	16046772	16112494	65722	duplication	17303064	17303064
chr1	chr1	11888669	11888776	107	duplication	11117719	11117799		chr1	chr1	17970320	17984232	13912	duplication	19237291	19237292
chr1	chr1	15899129	15931090	31961	duplication	14797193	14797194		chr1	chr1	18832015	18833967	1952	duplication	32598786	32598787
chr1	chr1	18225961	18226087	126	duplication	16968211	16968325		chr1	chr1	19519200	19561168	41968	duplication	19822394	19822394
chr1	chr1	25382432	25388788	6356	duplication	25545490	25545493		chr1	chr1	25641447	25647307	5860	duplication	25484693	25484694
chr1	chr1	25475440	25484693	9253	duplication	25647307	25647308		chr1	chr1	27616766	27616992	226	duplication	25978671	25978673
chr1	chr1	26899767	26899827	60	duplication	26233660	26233661		chr1	chr1	30293973	30294139	166	duplication	30904862	30904869
chr1	chr1	33461685	33641555	179870	duplication	33013693	33013694		chr1	chr1	31333977	31343066	9089	duplication	32013518	32013519

So, I can say that I have found 10 duplications on haplotype1-chr1 and 10 duplications on haplotype2-chr1, for a total a 20 different duplications. That fact that the coordinates for the query chromosome positions of duplications can vary in accuracy should not be a big issue.
As regards inversions, comparing haplotype1-chr1 vs. haplotype2-chr1 and haplotype2-chr1 vs. haplotype1-chr1, it seems that some inversions were identified only in one case or only in the other. The results are reported below.

ref_chr	query_chr	ref_start	ref_stop	size	SV_type	query_start	query_stop		ref_chr	query_chr	ref_start	ref_stop	size	SV_type	query_start	query_stop
chr1	chr1	928392	936829	8437	inversion	922519	937228		chr1	chr1	1078963	2013971	935008	inversion	1078547	1725591
chr1	chr1	1078547	1725591	647044	inversion	1078963	2013971		chr1	chr1	2739937	3999333	1259396	inversion	2450920	3188513
chr1	chr1	3322217	4595464	1273247	inversion	4085015	4619181		chr1	chr1	4007253	4010944	3691	inversion	3196440	3200122
chr1	chr1	6718265	7022914	304649	inversion	6261822	6419491		chr1	chr1	4058381	4060924	2543	inversion	3283498	3298224
chr1	chr1	7694800	7732806	38006	inversion	6921248	6933932		chr1	chr1	4085015	4619181	534166	inversion	3322217	4595464
chr1	chr1	7997744	8008258	10514	inversion	7199138	7251443		chr1	chr1	5398638	5836884	438246	inversion	5195438	6293327
chr1	chr1	10914442	11723952	809510	inversion	10166357	10961509		chr1	chr1	6261822	6419491	157669	inversion	6718265	7022914
chr1	chr1	12790274	13200365	410091	inversion	12011191	12036824		chr1	chr1	6921248	6933932	12684	inversion	7694800	7732806
chr1	chr1	18915584	19153861	238277	inversion	17659104	17897649		chr1	chr1	9665694	10131689	465995	inversion	10422224	10879774
chr1	chr1	19349912	19459708	109796	inversion	18117940	18117941		chr1	chr1	10166357	10955599	789242	inversion	10914442	11729862
chr1	chr1	25365381	25374070	8689	inversion	25521330	25530347		chr1	chr1	16514121	16524182	10061	inversion	17772558	17781891
chr1	chr1	25796661	25805131	8470	inversion	25964739	25973163		chr1	chr1	17659104	17897649	238545	inversion	18915584	19153861
chr1	chr1	25819305	26699887	880582	inversion	25987337	26037960		chr1	chr1	25964739	25973163	8424	inversion	25796661	25805131
chr1	chr1	30808857	30829719	20862	inversion	30197948	30219007		chr1	chr1	25987337	26037960	50623	inversion	25819305	26699887
chr1	chr1	32655857	33014034	358177	inversion	32082789	32393776		chr1	chr1	30197948	30219007	21059	inversion	30808857	30829719
chr1	chr1	33016918	33053334	36416	inversion	32396648	32492220		chr1	chr1	31170104	31680072	509968	inversion	31774371	32309684
chr1	chr1	33218101	33325587	107486	inversion	32589793	32697994		chr1	chr1	32027721	32393776	366055	inversion	32710925	33014034
chr1	chr1	33641556	33855619	214063	inversion	33193505	33406455		chr1	chr1	32469931	32571206	101275	inversion	33165089	33199342
									chr1	chr1	32589793	32697994	108201	inversion	33218101	33325587
									chr1	chr1	33193505	33406455	212950	inversion	33641556	33855619

Is there a particular reason why this can happen? However, I can verify the veracity of these cases through a dot plot analysis. I noticed that even in cases of shared identification the size of the event can change, but I think this could be due to the presence of gaps and indels within the inverted region. Could it be plausible?
Thanks for all the information you will be able to give me!
Yes, I'll have a look on your pipeline. I wasn't aware of that, thank you again.

Gabriele

[uceleste]

Thanks for all this information!
I'm happy to run the program again once you have made the necessary changes and I'll let you know the results of the dot plots.
See you soon!

[SAMtoBAM]

Hi there,
Sorry for taking a couple days
Essentially I have just reverted the parsing of the alignment for duplications onto the reciprocal alignment instead, and therefore this should find, If I am not mistaken, contractions should be the opposite on duplications. (but it took me a few hours to re-understand all the intermediate files and filters etc)
So here is a draft version of the script
Is is inside a newer version I will release soon with a vcf output
However it is limited to use with MUMmer4 as it requires to be given the threads option (-t) at the end of the line (I have wrote this in the read me on how to use the MUMmer4 specific version)

Let me know how it goes (it's gzipped just so I can upload it here)
mumandco_v3_MUMmer4_multithreads_contractions.sh.gz

[uceleste]

Hi!
I tested your new code for duplications using haplotype1-chr1 vs. haplotype2-chr1 and then I compared the result with the old one. The results are reported below.
new mumandco_v3 haplotype1-chr1 vs. haplotype2-chr1:

ref_chr	query_chr	ref_start	ref_stop	size	SV_type	query_start	query_stop
chr1	chr1	1349462	1349653	191	duplication	1725124	1725127
chr1	chr1	1678135	1682964	4829	duplication	1377849	1377851
chr1	chr1	3156729	3186550	29821	duplication	4085015	4085016
chr1	chr1	11331514	11384802	53288	duplication	10232990	10232990
chr1	chr1	11783930	11820088	36158	duplication	11051724	11051725
chr1	chr1	11888669	11888776	107	duplication	11117719	11117799
chr1	chr1	15899129	15931090	31961	duplication	14797193	14797194
chr1	chr1	18225961	18226087	126	duplication	16968211	16968325
chr1	chr1	25382432	25388788	6356	duplication	25545490	25545493
chr1	chr1	25475440	25484693	9253	duplication	25647307	25647308
chr1	chr1	26899767	26899827	60	duplication	26233660	26233661
chr1	chr1	33461685	33641555	179870	duplication	33013693	33013694
chr1	chr1	2549810	2549811	96125	contraction	4794578	4890703
chr1	chr1	14990751	14990787	138	contraction	13854641	13854779
chr1	chr1	17303064	17303064	65722	contraction	16046772	16112494
chr1	chr1	19237291	19237292	13912	contraction	17970320	17984232
chr1	chr1	19822394	19822394	41968	contraction	19519200	19561168
chr1	chr1	25484693	25484694	5860	contraction	25641447	25647307
chr1	chr1	25978671	25978673	226	contraction	27616766	27616992
chr1	chr1	30904862	30904869	166	contraction	30293973	30294139
chr1	chr1	32013518	32013519	9089	contraction	31333977	31343066
chr1	chr1	32598786	32598787	1952	contraction	18832015	18833967

old mumandco_v2.4.2 haplotype2-chr1 vs. haplotype1-chr1 (inverted):

ref_chr	query_chr	ref_start	ref_stop	size	SV_type	query_start	query_stop
chr1	chr1	4794578	4890703	96125	duplication	2549810	2549811
chr1	chr1	6419492	6432519	13027	duplication	7035943	7193751
chr1	chr1	11599672	12011191	411519	duplication	12790274	12790275
chr1	chr1	13854641	13854779	138	duplication	14990751	14990787
chr1	chr1	16046772	16112494	65722	duplication	17303064	17303064
chr1	chr1	17970320	17984232	13912	duplication	19237291	19237292
chr1	chr1	18832015	18833967	1952	duplication	32598786	32598787
chr1	chr1	19519200	19561168	41968	duplication	19822394	19822394
chr1	chr1	25641447	25647307	5860	duplication	25484693	25484694
chr1	chr1	27616766	27616992	226	duplication	25978671	25978673
chr1	chr1	30293973	30294139	166	duplication	30904862	30904869
chr1	chr1	31333977	31343066	9089	duplication	32013518	32013519

As you can see, it appears that the program correctly attributed what were previously identified as duplications between haplotype2-chr1 vs. haplotype1-chr1 (inverted) as contractions in the new output. All but two duplications (second and third row of the last table), which are not among the contractions. Do you have an idea why this small lack? Thanks for your active support.
P.S. I have yet to verify the previously discussed inversions through dot plot analysis.

[SAMtoBAM]

Unfortunately I don't have any idea at the moment why some duplications are not labelled as contractions in the opposite as it should be performing the same analysis on essentially the same alignment.
I will try play with a little further before it becomes the latest version, but I'm not sure I will figure it out.

No worries about the inversions, I can wait. If you can, I'd be interested to know about the duplications/contractions too. Would be nice to see!

Thanks Gabriele