w2rap - Suplementary Material

BJ Clavijo et. al] Bernardo J. Clavijo \({}^{1}\), Gonzalo Garcia Accinelli \({}^{1}\), Jonathan Wright \({}^{1}\), Darren Heavens \({}^{1}\), Katie Barr \({}^{1}\), Luis Yanes \({}^{1}\), Federica Di-Palma\({}^{1}\)
\(1\) Earlham Institute, Norwich Research Park, UK.

#w2rap-contigger processing steps

Each step during contig assembly uses significantly different algorithmic approaches and data. We segmented the w2rap-contigger processing into eight steps which can be run independently thus enabling us to make more efficient usage of resources when running multiple assemblies or sharing computational resources with other projects. This change produced two desired outcomes: (i) each step runs with the resources required for that step only thus avoiding a waste of computing resources on large-memory multi-processor machines and, (ii) the granularity of running shorter steps rather than all steps combined allows for better control over the assembly, and provides the opportunity for a detailed check of results from intermediate steps. These modifications are important when assembling large and complex genomes, where the contigging steps can take over 10 days.

Supplementary Table 1 describes each of the eight steps and their parameters.

Supplementary Table 1: w2rap-contigger execution steps

Step # Description Outputs
1 Read loading binary-formatted reads
2 60-mer counting and filtering 60-mer data, kmer spectra
3 Build small k (k=60) graph from reads small k graph, read paths
4 Build large K graph from small k graph and reads large K graph, read paths
5 Clean large K graph large K cleaned graph, read paths
6 Local assemblies on the large K graph "gaps" large K completed graph, read paths
7 Graph simplification and PathFinder large K simplified graph, read paths, raw/contig-lines GFA and fasta
8 PE-scale scaffolding across gaps in the large K graph large K simplified graph with jumps, read paths, raw/lines GFA and fasta

#Computational Performance of the w2rap-contigger vs. DISCOVAR denovo

##Conditions for the performance analysis

##OpenMP parallel processing vs. internal ad-hoc classes

##General memory usage considerations

##60-mer counting and disk batches

##Computational gain by correct parametrisation of the assembly

Process # A. thaliana
64t Peak Memory
A. thaliana
64t Runtime
H. sapiens
64t Peak Memory
H. sapiens
64t Runtime
w2rap Step 1 12 GB 4:52 240 GB 1:59:28
w2rap Step 2 (-d 0) 110.9 GB 11:17
w2rap Step 2 (-d 16) 443GB 17:38:39
w2rap Step 3 15.2 GB 11:13 274GB 6:44:20
w2rap Step 4 12.5 GB 3:16 299GB 1:19:12
w2rap Step 5 23.4 GB 18:02 545GB 26:13:59
w2rap Step 6 18.2 GB 10:36
w2rap Step 7 1.7 GB 1:20
w2rap Steps 1-7

Suplementary table 1: Peak Memory and Runtime when run with 64 threads on 64 CPUs, and with 128 threads on 128 CPUs on a NUMA system using independent steps of w2rap-contigger with default parameters and all steps at once, compared to DISCOVAR denovo, for the A.thaliana dataset and the H. sapiens Dataset. See supplementary material for memory usage profiles and further detail on how the software was run. (w2rap-contigger uses gnu malloc, discovar uses jemalloc).