ABSTRACT
Methods for analyzing the full complement of a biomolecule type, e.g., proteomics or metabolomics, generate large amounts of complex data. The software tools used to analyze omics data have reshaped the landscape of modern biology and become an essential component of biomedical research. These tools are themselves quite complex and often require the installation of other supporting software, libraries and/or databases. A researcher may also be using multiple different tools that require different versions of the same supporting materials. The increasing dependence of biomedical scientists on these powerful tools creates a need for easier installation and greater usability. Packaging and containerization are different approaches to satisfy this need by delivering omics tools already wrapped in additional software that makes the tools easier to install and use. In this systematic review, we describe and compare the features of prominent packaging and containerization platforms. We outline the challenges, advantages and limitations of each approach and some of the most widely used platforms from the perspectives of users, software developers and system administrators. We also propose principles to make the distribution of omics software more sustainable and robust to increase the reproducibility of biomedical and life science research.
ABSTRACT
Advances in whole-genome sequencing (WGS) promise to enable the accurate and comprehensive structural variant (SV) discovery. Dissecting SVs from WGS data presents a substantial number of challenges and a plethora of SV detection methods have been developed. Currently, evidence that investigators can use to select appropriate SV detection tools is lacking. In this article, we have evaluated the performance of SV detection tools on mouse and human WGS data using a comprehensive polymerase chain reaction-confirmed gold standard set of SVs and the genome-in-a-bottle variant set, respectively. In contrast to the previous benchmarking studies, our gold standard dataset included a complete set of SVs allowing us to report both precision and sensitivity rates of the SV detection methods. Our study investigates the ability of the methods to detect deletions, thus providing an optimistic estimate of SV detection performance as the SV detection methods that fail to detect deletions are likely to miss more complex SVs. We found that SV detection tools varied widely in their performance, with several methods providing a good balance between sensitivity and precision. Additionally, we have determined the SV callers best suited for low- and ultralow-pass sequencing data as well as for different deletion length categories.