Computational methods for large-scale single-cell RNA-seq and multimodal data

Emerging single cell genomics technologies such as single cell RNA-seq (scRNA-seq) and single cell ATAC-seq provide new opportunities for discovery of previously unknown cell types, facilitating the study of biological processes such as tumor progression, and delineating molecular mechanism differences between species. Due to the high dimensionality of the data produced by the technologies, computation and mathematics have been the cornerstone in decoding meaningful information from the data. Computational models have been challenged by the exponential growth of the data thanks to the continuing decrease in sequencing costs and growth of large-scale genomic projects such as the Human Cell Atlas. In addition, recent single-cell technologies have enabled us to measure multiple modalities such as transcriptome, protome, and epigenome in the same cell. This requires us to establish new computational methods which can cope with multiple layers of the data. To address these challenges, the main goal of this thesis was to develop computational methods and mathematical models for analyzing large-scale scRNA-seq and multimodal omics data. In particular, I have focused on fundamental single-cell analysis such as clustering and visualization. The most common task in scRNA-seq data analysis is the identification of cell types. Numerous methods have been proposed for this problem with a current focus on methods for the analysis of large scale scRNA-seq data. I developed Specter, a computational method that utilizes recent algorithmic advances in fast spectral clustering and ensemble learning. Specter achieves a substantial improvement in accuracy over existing methods and identifies rare cell types with high sensitivity. Specter allows us to process a dataset comprising 2 million cells in just 26 minutes. Moreover, the analysis of CITE-seq data, that simultaneously provides gene expression and protein levels, showed that Specter is able to incorporate multimodal omics measurements to resolve subtle transcriptomic differences between subpopulations of cells. We have effectively handled big data for clustering analysis using Specter. The question is how to cope with the big data for other downstream analyses such as trajectory inference and data integration. The most simple scheme is to shrink the data by selecting a subset of cells (the sketch) that best represents the full data set. Therefore I developed an algorithm called Sphetcher that makes use of the thresholding technique to efficiently pick representative cells that evenly cover the transcriptomic space occupied by the original data set. I showed that the sketch computed by Sphetcher constitutes a more accurate presentation of the original transcriptomic landscape than existing methods, which leads to a more balanced composition of cell types and a large fraction of rare cell types in the sketch. Sphetcher bridges the gap between the scalability of computational methods and the volume of the data. Moreover, I demonstrated that Sphetcher can incorporate prior information (e.g. cell labels) to inform the inference of the trajectory of human skeletal muscle myoblast differentiation. The biological processes such as development, differentiation, and cell cycle can be monitored by performing single cell sequencing at different time points, each corresponding to a snapshot of the process. A class of computational methods called trajectory inference aims to reconstruct the developmental trajectories from these snapshots. Trajectory inference (TI) methods such as Monocle, can computationally infer a pseudotime variable which serves as a proxy for developmental time. In order to compare two trajectories inferred by TI methods, we need to align the pseudotime between two trajectories. Current methods for aligning trajectories are based on the concept of dynamic time warping, which is limited to simple linear trajectories. Since complex trajectories are common in developmental processes, I adopted arboreal matchings to compare and align complex trajectories with multiple branch points diverting cells into alternative fates. Arboreal matchings were originally proposed in the context of phylogenetic trees and I theoretically linked them to dynamic time warping. A suite of exact and heuristic algorithms for aligning complex trajectories was implemented in a software Trajan. When aligning single-cell trajectories describing human muscle differentiation and myogenic reprogramming, Trajan automatically identifies the core paths from which we are able to reproduce recently reported barriers to reprogramming. In a perturbation experiment, I showed that Trajan correctly maps identical cells in a global view of trajectories, as opposed to a pairwise application of dynamic time warping. Visualization using dimensionality reduction techniques such as t-SNE and UMAP is a fundamental step in the analysis of high-dimensional data. Visualization has played a pivotal role in discovering the dynamic trends in single cell genomics data. I developed j-SNE and j-UMAP as their generalizations to the joint visualization of multimodal omics data, e.g., CITE-seq data. The approach automatically learns the relative importance of each modality in order to obtain a concise representation of the data. When comparing with the conventional approaches, I demonstrated that j-SNE and j-UMAP produce unified embeddings that better agree with known cell types and that harmonize RNA and protein velocity landscapes

Phylogenetics in the Genomic Era

Molecular phylogenetics was born in the middle of the 20th century, when the advent of protein and DNA sequencing offered a novel way to study the evolutionary relationships between living organisms. The first 50 years of the discipline can be seen as a long quest for resolving power. The goal – reconstructing the tree of life – seemed to be unreachable, the methods were heavily debated, and the data limiting. Maybe for these reasons, even the relevance of the whole approach was repeatedly questioned, as part of the so-called molecules versus morphology debate. Controversies often crystalized around long-standing conundrums, such as the origin of land plants, the diversification of placental mammals, or the prokaryote/eukaryote divide. Some of these questions were resolved as gene and species samples increased in size. Over the years, molecular phylogenetics has gradually evolved from a brilliant, revolutionary idea to a mature research field centred on the problem of reliably building trees. This logical progression was abruptly interrupted in the late 2000s. High-throughput sequencing arose and the field suddenly moved into something entirely different. Access to genome-scale data profoundly reshaped the methodological challenges, while opening an amazing range of new application perspectives. Phylogenetics left the realm of systematics to occupy a central place in one of the most exciting research fields of this century – genomics. This is what this book is about: how we do trees, and what we do with trees, in the current phylogenomic era. One obvious, practical consequence of the transition to genome-scale data is that the most widely used tree-building methods, which are based on probabilistic models of sequence evolution, require intensive algorithmic optimization to be applicable to current datasets. This problem is considered in Part 1 of the book, which includes a general introduction to Markov models (Chapter 1.1) and a detailed description of how to optimally design and implement Maximum Likelihood (Chapter 1.2) and Bayesian (Chapter 1.4) phylogenetic inference methods. The importance of the computational aspects of modern phylogenomics is such that efficient software development is a major activity of numerous research groups in the field. We acknowledge this and have included seven "How to" chapters presenting recent updates of major phylogenomic tools – RAxML (Chapter 1.3), PhyloBayes (Chapter 1.5), MACSE (Chapter 2.3), Bgee (Chapter 4.3), RevBayes (Chapter 5.2), Beagle (Chapter 5.4), and BPP (Chapter 5.6). Genome-scale data sets are so large that statistical power, which had been the main limiting factor of phylogenetic inference during previous decades, is no longer a major issue. Massive data sets instead tend to amplify the signal they deliver – be it biological or artefactual – so that bias and inconsistency, instead of sampling variance, are the main problems with phylogenetic inference in the genomic era. Part 2 covers the issues of data quality and model adequacy in phylogenomics. Chapter 2.1 provides an overview of current practice and makes recommendations on how to avoid the more common biases. Two chapters review the challenges and limitations of two key steps of phylogenomic analysis pipelines, sequence alignment (Chapter 2.2) and orthology prediction (Chapter 2.4), which largely determine the reliability of downstream inferences. The performance of tree building methods is also the subject of Chapter 2.5, in which a new approach is introduced to assess the quality of gene trees based on their ability to correctly predict ancestral gene order. Analyses of multiple genes typically recover multiple, distinct trees. Maybe the biggest conceptual advance induced by the phylogenetic to phylogenomic transition is the suggestion that one should not simply aim to reconstruct “the” species tree, but rather to be prepared to make sense of forests of gene trees. Chapter 3.1 reviews the numerous reasons why gene trees can differ from each other and from the species tree, and what the implications are for phylogenetic inference. Chapter 3.2 focuses on gene trees/species trees reconciliation methods that account for gene duplication/loss and horizontal gene transfer among lineages. Incomplete lineage sorting is another major source of phylogenetic incongruence among loci, which recently gained attention and is covered by Chapter 3.3. Chapter 3.4 concludes this part by taking a user’s perspective and examining the pros and cons of concatenation versus separate analysis of gene sequence alignments. Modern genomics is comparative and phylogenetic methods are key to a wide range of questions and analyses relevant to the study of molecular evolution. This is covered by Part 4. We argue that genome annotation, either structural or functional, can only be properly achieved in a phylogenetic context. Chapters 4.1 and 4.2 review the power of these approaches and their connections with the study of gene function. Molecular substitution rates play a key role in our understanding of the prevalence of nearly neutral versus adaptive molecular evolution, and the influence of species traits on genome dynamics (Chapter 4.4). The analysis of substitution rates, and particularly the detection of positive selection, requires sophisticated methods and models of coding sequence evolution (Chapter 4.5). Phylogenomics also offers a unique opportunity to explore evolutionary convergence at a molecular level, thus addressing the long-standing question of predictability versus contingency in evolution (Chapter 4.6). The development of phylogenomics, as reviewed in Parts 1 through 4, has resulted in a powerful conceptual and methodological corpus, which is often reused for addressing problems of interest to biologists from other fields. Part 5 illustrates this application potential via three selected examples. Chapter 5.1 addresses the link between phylogenomics and palaeontology; i.e., how to optimally combine molecular and fossil data for estimating divergence times. Chapter 5.3 emphasizes the importance of the phylogenomic approach in virology and its potential to trace the origin and spread of infectious diseases in space and time. Finally, Chapter 5.5 recalls why phylogenomic methods and the multi-species coalescent model are key in addressing the problem of species delimitation – one of the major goals of taxonomy. It is hard to predict where phylogenomics as a discipline will stand in even 10 years. Maybe a novel technological revolution will bring it to yet another level? We strongly believe, however, that tree thinking will remain pivotal in the treatment and interpretation of the deluge of genomic data to come. Perhaps a prefiguration of the future of our field is provided by the daily monitoring of the current Covid-19 outbreak via the phylogenetic analysis of coronavirus genomic data in quasi real time – a topic of major societal importance, contemporary to the publication of this book, in which phylogenomics is instrumental in helping to fight disease

2016 Oklahoma Research Day Full Program

This document contains all abstracts from the 2016 Oklahoma Research Day held at Northeastern State University