Alignment-free Genomic Analysis via a Big Data Spark Platform

Motivation: Alignment-free distance and similarity functions (AF functions, for short) are a well established alternative to two and multiple sequence alignments for many genomic, metagenomic and epigenomic tasks. Due to data-intensive applications, the computation of AF functions is a Big Data problem, with the recent Literature indicating that the development of fast and scalable algorithms computing AF functions is a high-priority task. Somewhat surprisingly, despite the increasing popularity of Big Data technologies in Computational Biology, the development of a Big Data platform for those tasks has not been pursued, possibly due to its complexity. Results: We fill this important gap by introducing FADE, the first extensible, efficient and scalable Spark platform for Alignment-free genomic analysis. It supports natively eighteen of the best performing AF functions coming out of a recent hallmark benchmarking study. FADE development and potential impact comprises novel aspects of interest. Namely, (a) a considerable effort of distributed algorithms, the most tangible result being a much faster execution time of reference methods like MASH and FSWM; (b) a software design that makes FADE user-friendly and easily extendable by Spark non-specialists; (c) its ability to support data- and compute-intensive tasks. About this, we provide a novel and much needed analysis of how informative and robust AF functions are, in terms of the statistical significance of their output. Our findings naturally extend the ones of the highly regarded benchmarking study, since the functions that can really be used are reduced to a handful of the eighteen included in FADE

A Tutorial on Computational Cluster Analysis with Applications to Pattern Discovery in Microarray Data

Background Inferring cluster structure in microarray datasets is a fundamental task for the so-called -omic sciences. It is also a fundamental question in Statistics, Data Analysis and Classification, in particular with regard to the prediction of the number of clusters in a dataset, usually established via internal validation measures. Despite the wealth of internal measures available in the literature, new ones have been recently proposed, some of them specifically for microarray data. Results We consider five such measures: Clest, Consensus (Consensus Clustering), FOM (Figure of Merit), Gap (Gap Statistics) and ME (Model Explorer), in addition to the classic WCSS (Within Cluster Sum-of-Squares) and KL (Krzanowski and Lai index). We perform extensive experiments on six benchmark microarray datasets, using both Hierarchical and K-means clustering algorithms, and we provide an analysis assessing both the intrinsic ability of a measure to predict the correct number of clusters in a dataset and its merit relative to the other measures. We pay particular attention both to precision and speed. Moreover, we also provide various fast approximation algorithms for the computation of Gap, FOM and WCSS. The main result is a hierarchy of those measures in terms of precision and speed, highlighting some of their merits and limitations not reported before in the literature. Conclusion Based on our analysis, we draw several conclusions for the use of those internal measures on microarray data. We report the main ones. Consensus is by far the best performer in terms of predictive power and remarkably algorithm-independent. Unfortunately, on large datasets, it may be of no use because of its non-trivial computer time demand (weeks on a state of the art PC). FOM is the second best performer although, quite surprisingly, it may not be competitive in this scenario: it has essentially the same predictive power of WCSS but it is from 6 to 100 times slower in time, depending on the dataset. The approximation algorithms for the computation of FOM, Gap and WCSS perform very well, i.e., they are faster while still granting a very close approximation of FOM and WCSS. The approximation algorithm for the computation of Gap deserves to be singled-out since it has a predictive power far better than Gap, it is competitive with the other measures, but it is at least two order of magnitude faster in time with respect to Gap. Another important novel conclusion that can be drawn from our analysis is that all the measures we have considered show severe limitations on large datasets, either due to computational demand (Consensus, as already mentioned, Clest and Gap) or to lack of precision (all of the other measures, including their approximations). The software and datasets are available under the GNU GPL on the supplementary material web page