sourav chatterji uc davis genome center schatterji@ucdavis
DESCRIPTION
Computational Metagenomics : Algorithms for Understanding the " Unculturable " Microbial Majority . Sourav Chatterji UC Davis Genome Center [email protected]. Background. The Microbial World. Exploring the Microbial World. Culturing Majority of microbes currently unculturable . - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Computational Metagenomics: Algorithms for Understanding the "Unculturable" Microbial Majority
Sourav ChatterjiUC Davis Genome [email protected]
Background
The Microbial World
Exploring the Microbial World
• Culturing– Majority of microbes currently unculturable.– No ecological context.
• Molecular Surveys (e.g. 16S rRNA)– “who is out there?”– “what are they doing?”
Environmental Shotgun Sequencing
Interpreting Metagenomic Data
• Nature of Metagenomic Data– Mosaic– Intraspecies polymorphism– Fragmentary
• New Sequencing Technologies– Enormous amount of data– Short Reads
Overview of Talk
• Metagenomic Binning• PhyloMetagenomics• The Big Picture/ Future Work
Overview of Talk
• Metagenomic Binning– Background– CompostBin
• PhyloMetagenomics• The Big Picture/ Future Work
Metagenomic Binning
Classification of sequences by taxa
Current Binning Methods
• Assembly • Align with Reference Genome• Database Search [MEGAN, BLAST]• Phylogenetic Analysis• DNA Composition [TETRA,Phylopythia]
Current Binning Methods
• Need closely related reference genomes.• Poor performance on short fragments.
– Sanger sequence reads 500-1000 bp long.– Current assembly methods unreliable
• Complex Communities Hard to Bin.
Genome Signatures
• Does genomic sequence from an organism have a unique “signature” that distinguishes it from genomic sequence of other organisms?– Yes [Karlin et al. 1990s]
• What is the minimum length sequence that is required to distinguish genomic sequence of one organism from the genomic sequence of another organism?
DNA-composition metrics
The K-mer Frequency MetricCompostBin uses hexamers
• Working with K-mers for Binning.– Curse of Dimensionality : O(4K) independent
dimensions.– Statistical noise increases with decreasing
fragment lengths.• Project data into a lower dimensional space to
decrease noise.– Principal Component Analysis.
DNA-composition metrics
PCA separates species
Gluconobacter oxydans[65% GC] and Rhodospirillum rubrum[61% GC]
Effect of Skewed Relative Abundance
B. anthracis and L. monogocytes
Abundance 1:1 Abundance 20:1
A Weighting Scheme
For each read, find overlap with other sequences
A Weighting Scheme
Calculate the redundancy of each position.
4 5 5 3
Weight is inverse of average redundancy.
Weighted PCA
• Calculate weighted mean µw :
• Calculates weighted co-variance matrix Mw
• Principal Components are eigenvectors of Mw.– Use first three PCs for further analysis.
Twi
N
1iwiiw )μ(X)μ(XwM --=å
=
N
Xwμ
N
1iii
w
å==
Weighted PCA separates species
B. anthracis and L. monogocytes : 20:1
PCA Weighted PCA
Un-supervised Classification?
Semi-Supervised Classification
• 31 Marker Genes [courtesy Martin Wu]– Omni-present– Relatively Immune to Lateral Gene Transfer
• Reads containing these marker genes can be classified with high reliability.
Semi-supervised Classification
Use a semi-supervised version of the normalized cut algorithm
The Semi-supervised Normalized Cut Algorithm
1. Calculate the K-nearest neighbor graph from the point set.
2. Update graph with marker information.o If two nodes are from the same species, add an
edge between them.o If two nodes are from different species, remove
any edge between them.
3. Bisect the graph using the normalized-cut algorithm.
Generalization to multiple bins
Gluconobacter oxydans [0.61], Granulobacter bethesdensis[0.59] and Nitrobacter hamburgensis
[0.62]
Apply algorithm
recursively
Generalization to multiple bins
Gluconobacter oxydans [0.61], Granulobacter bethesdensis[0.59] and Nitrobacter hamburgensis
[0.62]
Testing
• Simulate Metagenomic Sequencing– Variables
• Number of species• Relative abundance• GC content• Phylogenetic Diversity
• Test on a “real” dataset where answer is well-established.
Results
Conclusions
Satisfactory performance No Training on Existing Genomes Sanger Reads Low number of Species
Overview of Talk
• Metagenomic Binning• Phylo-Metagenomics
– Background– Incorporating Alignment Accuracy
• The Big Picture/ Future Work
Phylogenetic Trees
Charles Darwin, First Notebook on Transmutation of Species (1837)
Garcia Martin et al., Nat. Biotechnology (2006)
Population Structure of Communities
Yooseph et al., PLoS Biology (2007)
Gene Family Characterization
Wong et al., Science, 2008
Manual Masking
• Require skilled and tedious manual intervention
• Subjective and non-reproducible• Impractical for high throughput data
– Frequently ignored. “Garbage-in-and-garbage-out”
Gblocks
Probabilistic Masking using pair-HMMs
• Probabilistic formulation of alignment problem.
• Can answer additional questions– Alignment Reliability– Sub-optimal Alignments
Durbin et al., Cambridge University Press (1998)
Probabilistic Masking
• What is the probability residues xi and yj are homologous?
• Posterior Probability the residues xi and yj are homologous
• Can be calculated efficiently for all pairs (and gaps) in quadratic time.
y]Pr[x,y]x,,yPr[x
]yPr[x jiji
à=à
Scoring Multiple Alignments
• Calculate the “posterior probability matrix” and distances dij between every pair of sequences.
• Weighted “sum of pairs” score for column r :
å
å à
ji,ij
jiji,
ij
d
]rPr[rd
Testing
The Balibase 3.0 Benchmark Database
Testing
• Realign sequences using MSA programs like Clustalw.
• Sensitivity: for all correctly aligned columns, the fraction that has been masked as good
• Specificity: for all incorrectly aligned columns, the fraction that has been masked as bad
Performance
Gblocks
Prob Mask
Sensitivity Specificity
97% 93%
53% 94%
Effect on Phylogenetic Inference
Protocol Symmetric Tree Inference Accuracy
Asymmetric Tree Inference Accuracy
No Masking 84.08 % 80.51 %
Gblocks 76.92 % 79.99 %
Prob. Masking 85.11 % 84.60 %
Gblocks simulated data-set, PhyML likelihood tree
Consistency between Alignment Programs
• Yeast Genome Data Set– 7 yeast species, 1502 “orthologs” in each.
• Wong et al. , Science (2008).– Aligned using 7 programs– Different programs often give inconsistent
answers.• Garbage in, Garbage Out?
– Partial Data, confusing global alignment programs.– No Masking
Consistency between Alignment Programs
Protocol Inconsistent Consistent
No Masking 4.05 % 95.95%
Prob. Masking 2.74 % 97.26%
Masking remove ~33% of inconsistencies
Consistency between Alignment Programs
ProtocolInconsistent Consistent
No BootstrapSupport
Bootstrap Support
No BootstrapSupport
Bootstrap Support
No Masking 3.73 % 0.32 % 23.41 % 72.54%
Prob. Masking 2.67% 0.07 % 23.77 % 73.48 %
Masking remove ~75% of inconsistencies with high support
The Final Result
A Phylogenetic Database/Pipeline (with Martin Wu)
Overview of Talk
• Metagenomic Binning • Phylo-Metagenomics• The Big Picture/ Future Work
Population Structure
Venter et al. , Science (2004)
Future Directions/Challenges
• What defines a species (OTU)?– Clustering Problem
• Handling Partial Data• Improved Phylogenetic Inference• How to integrate information from multiple
markers?
Species Interactions
Interactions in Microbial Communities
Time Series Data
Ruan et al., Bioinformatics (2006)
Interaction Networks in Microbial Communities
Ruan et al., Bioinformatics (2006)
Functional Profiling
Prediction of Gene Function Prediction of Metabolic Pathway
Functional Profiling (with Binning)
McCutcheon and Moran PNAS.(2007)
Future Directions/Challenges
• Inferring Species Interactions– Time Series Analysis– Network Dynamics
• Generalizing Binning to Multiple Classes– Semi-supervised Approach
• Semi Supervised Projection?
– More Phylogenetic Markers• Iterative Binning/Assembly
– Problem : Modeling variations within a species
Single Cell Genomics
Reads From Single Cell “Simulated” Contamination
With Ramunas Stepanauskas at Bigelow Institute
Detecting Genetic Engineering
Caveat : Also detects host anomalous DNA (e.g. LGT), Comparative Genomics helps
The Big PictureMicrobial Community
Metagenomic Sampling Single Cell Genomics
Population Structure Functional Profiling
Species Interaction Network
Time Series Data
Acknowledgements
UC Davis• Jonathan Eisen • Martin Wu• Dongying Wu• Ichitaro Yamazaki• Amber Hartman• Marcel Huntemann
UC Berkeley• Lior Pachter• Richard Karp• Ambuj Tewari• Narayanan Manikandan
Princeton University• Simon Levin• Josh Weitz• Jonathan Dushoff