OVA: Integrating molecular and physical phenotype data from multiple biomedical domain ontologies with variant filtering for enhanced variant prioritization

Motivation: Exome sequencing has become a de facto standard method for Mendelian disease gene discovery in recent years, yet identifying disease-causing mutations among thousands of candidate variants remains a non-trivial task. Results: Here we describe a new variant prioritization tool, OVA (ontology variant analysis), in which user-provided phenotypic information is exploited to infer deeper biological context. OVA combines a knowledge-based approach with a variant-filtering framework. It reduces the number of candidate variants by considering genotype and predicted effect on protein sequence, and scores the remainder on biological relevance to the query phenotype. We take advantage of several ontologies in order to bridge knowledge across multiple biomedical domains and facilitate computational analysis of annotations pertaining to genes, diseases, phenotypes, tissues and pathways. In this way, OVA combines information regarding molecular and physical phenotypes and integrates both human and model organism data to effectively prioritize variants. By assessing performance on both known and novel disease mutations, we show that OVA performs biologically meaningful candidate variant prioritization and can be more accurate than another recently published candidate variant prioritization tool

Using machine learning to predict pathogenicity of genomic variants throughout the human genome

Geschätzt mehr als 6.000 Erkrankungen werden durch Veränderungen im Genom verursacht. Ursachen gibt es viele: Eine genomische Variante kann die Translation eines Proteins stoppen, die Genregulation stören oder das Spleißen der mRNA in eine andere Isoform begünstigen. All diese Prozesse müssen überprüft werden, um die zum beschriebenen Phänotyp passende Variante zu ermitteln. Eine Automatisierung dieses Prozesses sind Varianteneffektmodelle. Mittels maschinellem Lernen und Annotationen aus verschiedenen Quellen bewerten diese Modelle genomische Varianten hinsichtlich ihrer Pathogenität. Die Entwicklung eines Varianteneffektmodells erfordert eine Reihe von Schritten: Annotation der Trainingsdaten, Auswahl von Features, Training verschiedener Modelle und Selektion eines Modells. Hier präsentiere ich ein allgemeines Workflow dieses Prozesses. Dieses ermöglicht es den Prozess zu konfigurieren, Modellmerkmale zu bearbeiten, und verschiedene Annotationen zu testen. Der Workflow umfasst außerdem die Optimierung von Hyperparametern, Validierung und letztlich die Anwendung des Modells durch genomweites Berechnen von Varianten-Scores. Der Workflow wird in der Entwicklung von Combined Annotation Dependent Depletion (CADD), einem Varianteneffektmodell zur genomweiten Bewertung von SNVs und InDels, verwendet. Durch Etablierung des ersten Varianteneffektmodells für das humane Referenzgenome GRCh38 demonstriere ich die gewonnenen Möglichkeiten Annotationen aufzugreifen und neue Modelle zu trainieren. Außerdem zeige ich, wie Deep-Learning-Scores als Feature in einem CADD-Modell die Vorhersage von RNA-Spleißing verbessern. Außerdem werden Varianteneffektmodelle aufgrund eines neuen, auf Allelhäufigkeit basierten, Trainingsdatensatz entwickelt. Diese Ergebnisse zeigen, dass der entwickelte Workflow eine skalierbare und flexible Möglichkeit ist, um Varianteneffektmodelle zu entwickeln. Alle entstandenen Scores sind unter cadd.gs.washington.edu und cadd.bihealth.org frei verfügbar.More than 6,000 diseases are estimated to be caused by genomic variants. This can happen in many possible ways: a variant may stop the translation of a protein, interfere with gene regulation, or alter splicing of the transcribed mRNA into an unwanted isoform. It is necessary to investigate all of these processes in order to evaluate which variant may be causal for the deleterious phenotype. A great help in this regard are variant effect scores. Implemented as machine learning classifiers, they integrate annotations from different resources to rank genomic variants in terms of pathogenicity. Developing a variant effect score requires multiple steps: annotation of the training data, feature selection, model training, benchmarking, and finally deployment for the model's application. Here, I present a generalized workflow of this process. It makes it simple to configure how information is converted into model features, enabling the rapid exploration of different annotations. The workflow further implements hyperparameter optimization, model validation and ultimately deployment of a selected model via genome-wide scoring of genomic variants. The workflow is applied to train Combined Annotation Dependent Depletion (CADD), a variant effect model that is scoring SNVs and InDels genome-wide. I show that the workflow can be quickly adapted to novel annotations by porting CADD to the genome reference GRCh38. Further, I demonstrate the integration of deep-neural network scores as features into a new CADD model, improving the annotation of RNA splicing events. Finally, I apply the workflow to train multiple variant effect models from training data that is based on variants selected by allele frequency. In conclusion, the developed workflow presents a flexible and scalable method to train variant effect scores. All software and developed scores are freely available from cadd.gs.washington.edu and cadd.bihealth.org

Grand Celebration: 10th Anniversary of the Human Genome Project

In 1990, scientists began working together on one of the largest biological research projects ever proposed. The project proposed to sequence the three billion nucleotides in the human genome. The Human Genome Project took 13 years and was completed in April 2003, at a cost of approximately three billion dollars. It was a major scientific achievement that forever changed the understanding of our own nature. The sequencing of the human genome was in many ways a triumph for technology as much as it was for science. From the Human Genome Project, powerful technologies have been developed (e.g., microarrays and next generation sequencing) and new branches of science have emerged (e.g., functional genomics and pharmacogenomics), paving new ways for advancing genomic research and medical applications of genomics in the 21st century. The investigations have provided new tests and drug targets, as well as insights into the basis of human development and diagnosis/treatment of cancer and several mysterious humans diseases. This genomic revolution is prompting a new era in medicine, which brings both challenges and opportunities. Parallel to the promising advances over the last decade, the study of the human genome has also revealed how complicated human biology is, and how much remains to be understood. The legacy of the understanding of our genome has just begun. To celebrate the 10th anniversary of the essential completion of the Human Genome Project, in April 2013 Genes launched this Special Issue, which highlights the recent scientific breakthroughs in human genomics, with a collection of papers written by authors who are leading experts in the field

Novel Algorithm Development for ‘NextGeneration’ Sequencing Data Analysis

In recent years, the decreasing cost of ‘Next generation’ sequencing has spawned numerous applications for interrogating whole genomes and transcriptomes in research, diagnostic and forensic settings. While the innovations in sequencing have been explosive, the development of scalable and robust bioinformatics software and algorithms for the analysis of new types of data generated by these technologies have struggled to keep up. As a result, large volumes of NGS data available in public repositories are severely underutilised, despite providing a rich resource for data mining applications. Indeed, the bottleneck in genome and transcriptome sequencing experiments has shifted from data generation to bioinformatics analysis and interpretation. This thesis focuses on development of novel bioinformatics software to bridge the gap between data availability and interpretation. The work is split between two core topics – computational prioritisation/identification of disease gene variants and identification of RNA N6 -adenosine Methylation from sequencing data. The first chapter briefly discusses the emergence and establishment of NGS technology as a core tool in biology and its current applications and perspectives. Chapter 2 introduces the problem of variant prioritisation in the context of Mendelian disease, where tens of thousands of potential candidates are generated by a typical sequencing experiment. Novel software developed for candidate gene prioritisation is described that utilises data mining of tissue-specific gene expression profiles (Chapter 3). The second part of chapter investigates an alternative approach to candidate variant prioritisation by leveraging functional and phenotypic descriptions of genes and diseases from multiple biomedical domain ontologies (Chapter 4). Chapter 5 discusses N6 AdenosineMethylation, a recently re-discovered posttranscriptional modification of RNA. The core of the chapter describes novel software developed for transcriptome-wide detection of this epitranscriptomic mark from sequencing data. Chapter 6 presents a case study application of the software, reporting the previously uncharacterised RNA methylome of Kaposi’s Sarcoma Herpes Virus. The chapter further discusses a putative novel N6-methyl-adenosine -RNA binding protein and its possible roles in the progression of viral infection

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