BMC BioinformaticsBioinformaticsPeer-reviewed journal article
Mind your gaps: Overlooking assembly gaps confounds statistical testing in genome analysis
Diana DomańskaiD, Chakravarthi KanduriiD, Boris SimovskiiD, Geir Kjetil SandveiD
Abstract
BackgroundThe difficulties associated with sequencing and assembling some regions of the DNA sequence result in gaps in the reference genomes that are typically represented as stretches of Ns. Although the presence of assembly gaps causes a slight reduction in the mapping rate in many experimental settings, that does not invalidate the typical statistical testing comparing read count distributions across experimental conditions. However, we hypothesize that not handling assembly gaps in the null model may confound statistical testing of co-localization of genomic features.\n\nResultsFirst, we performed a series of explorative analyses to understand whether and how the public genomic tracks intersect the assembly gaps track (hg19). The findings rightly confirm that the genomic regions in public genomic tracks intersect very little with assembly gaps and the intersection was observed only at the beginning and end regions of the assembly gaps rather than covering the whole gap sizes. Further, we simulated a set of query and reference genomic tracks in a way that nullified any dependence between them to test our hypothesis that not avoiding assembly gaps in the null model would result in spurious inflation of statistical significance. We then contrasted the distributions of test statistics and p-values of Monte Carlo simulation-based permutation tests that either avoided or not avoided assembly gaps in the null model when testing for significant co-localization between a pair of query and reference tracks. We observed that the statistical tests that did not account for the assembly gaps in the null model resulted in a distribution of the test statistic that is shifted to the right and a distribu tion of p-values that is shifted to the left (leading to inflated significance).\n\nConclusionOur results shows that not accounting for assembly gaps in statistical testing of co-localization analysis may lead to false positives and over-optimistic findings.
- Citations
- 9
- FWCI
- 0.44
- Field percentile
- top 41%
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- A Note on Computing Interval Overlap Statistics
Shahab Sarmashghi, Vineet Bafna·bioRxiv·Jan 11, 2019
- GAVISUNK: Genome assembly validation via inter-SUNK distances in Oxford Nanopore reads
Philip C. Dishuck, Allison N. Rozanski, … Evan E. Eichler·BioinformaticsPeer-reviewed·Nov 2, 2022
- Efficient Analysis of Annotation Colocalization Accounting for Genomic Contexts
Askar Gafurov, Tomáš Vinař, … Broňa Brejová·Lecture notes in computer sciencePeer-reviewed·Jan 1, 2024
- GCI: a continuity inspector for complete genome assembly
Quanyu Chen, Chentao Yang, … Dongya Wu·BioinformaticsPeer-reviewed·Oct 18, 2024
- Inferring synteny between genome assemblies: a systematic evaluation
Dang Liu, Martin Hunt, Isheng Jason Tsai·BMC BioinformaticsPeer-reviewed·Jan 30, 2018
- Figbird: A probabilistic method for filling gaps in genome assemblies
Sumit Tarafder, Mazharul Islam, … Atif Hasan Rahman·BioinformaticsPeer-reviewed·Jun 22, 2022