SummaryImmune evasion is a hallmark of cancer. Losing the ability to present neoantigens through human leukocyte antigen (HLA) loss may facilitate immune evasion. However, the polymorphic nature of the locus has precluded accurate HLA copy-number analysis. Here, we present loss of heterozygosity in human leukocyte antigen (LOHHLA), a computational tool to determine HLA allele-specific copy number from sequencing data. Using LOHHLA, we find that HLA LOH occurs in 40% of non-small-cell lung cancers (NSCLCs) and is associated with a high subclonal neoantigen burden, APOBEC-mediated mutagenesis, upregulation of cytolytic activity, and PD-L1 positivity. The focal nature of HLA LOH alterations, their subclonal frequencies, enrichment in metastatic sites, and occurrence as parallel events suggests that HLA LOH is an immune escape mechanism that is subject to strong microenvironmental selection pressures later in tumor evolution. Characterizing HLA LOH with LOHHLA refines neoantigen prediction and may have implications for our understanding of resistance mechanisms and immunotherapeutic approaches targeting neoantigens.Video Abstract

The shift to digital systems for the creation, transmission and storage of information has led to increasing complexity in archiving, requiring active, ongoing maintenance of the digital media. DNA is an attractive target for information storage 1 because of its capacity for high density information encoding, longevity under easily-achieved conditions 2-4 and proven track record as an information bearer. Previous DNA-based information storage approaches have encoded only trivial amounts of information 5-7 or were not amenable to scaling-up 8 , and used no robust errorcorrection and lacked examination of their cost-efficiency for large-scale information archival 9 . Here we describe a scalable method that can reliably store more information than has been handled before. We encoded computer files totalling 739 kB of hard disk storage and with an estimated Shannon information 10 of 5.2 × 10 6 bits into a DNA code, synthesised this DNA, sequenced it and reconstructed the original files with 100% accuracy. Theoretical analysis indicates that our DNA-storage scheme scales far beyond current global information volumes. These results demonstrate DNA-storage to be a realistic technology for large-scale digital archiving that may already be cost-effective for low access, multi-century-long archiving tasks. Within a decade, as costs fall rapidly under realistic scenarios for technological advances, it may be cost-effective for sub-50-year archival.Although techniques for manipulating, storing and copying large amounts of DNA have been established for many years [11][12][13] , these rely on the availability of initial copies of the DNA molecule to be processed, and one of the main challenges for practical information storage in DNA is the difficulty of synthesising long sequences of DNA de novo to an exactly-specified design. Instead, we developed an in vitro approach that represents the information being stored as a hypothetical long DNA molecule and encodes this using shorter DNA fragments. A similar approach was proposed by Church et al. 9 in a report * To whom correspondence should be addressed; goldman@ebi.ac.uk. SupplementaryInformation is provided as a number of separate files accompanying this document.Author Contributions N.G. and E.B. conceived and planned the project and devised the information encoding methods. P.B. advised on NGS protocols, prepared the DNA library and managed the sequencing process. S.C. and E.M.L. provided custom oligonucleotides. N.G. wrote the software for encoding and decoding information into/from DNA and analysed the data. N.G., E.B., C.D. and B.S. modelled the scaling properties of DNA-storage. N.G. wrote the paper with discussions and contributions from all other authors. N.G. and C.D. produced the figures.Author Information Data are available online at http://www.ebi.ac.uk/goldman-srv/DNA-storage and in the Sequence Read Archive (SRA) with accession number ERP002040 (to be confirmed). Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to N.G. (goldman@ebi.ac.uk). Co...

Phylogenetic inference and evaluating support for inferred relationships is at the core of many studies testing evolutionary hypotheses. Despite the popularity of nonparametric bootstrap frequencies and Bayesian posterior probabilities, the interpretation of these measures of tree branch support remains a source of discussion. Furthermore, both methods are computationally expensive and become prohibitive for large data sets. Recent fast approximate likelihood-based measures of branch supports (approximate likelihood ratio test [aLRT] and Shimodaira–Hasegawa [SH]-aLRT) provide a compelling alternative to these slower conventional methods, offering not only speed advantages but also excellent levels of accuracy and power. Here we propose an additional method: a Bayesian-like transformation of aLRT (aBayes). Considering both probabilistic and frequentist frameworks, we compare the performance of the three fast likelihood-based methods with the standard bootstrap (SBS), the Bayesian approach, and the recently introduced rapid bootstrap. Our simulations and real data analyses show that with moderate model violations, all tests are sufficiently accurate, but aLRT and aBayes offer the highest statistical power and are very fast. With severe model violations aLRT, aBayes and Bayesian posteriors can produce elevated false-positive rates. With data sets for which such violation can be detected, we recommend using SH-aLRT, the nonparametric version of aLRT based on a procedure similar to the Shimodaira–Hasegawa tree selection. In general, the SBS seems to be excessively conservative and is much slower than our approximate likelihood-based methods.

Approximate Bayesian computation (ABC) constitutes a class of computational methods rooted in Bayesian statistics. In all model-based statistical inference, the likelihood function is of central importance, since it expresses the probability of the observed data under a particular statistical model, and thus quantifies the support data lend to particular values of parameters and to choices among different models. For simple models, an analytical formula for the likelihood function can typically be derived. However, for more complex models, an analytical formula might be elusive or the likelihood function might be computationally very costly to evaluate. ABC methods bypass the evaluation of the likelihood function. In this way, ABC methods widen the realm of models for which statistical inference can be considered. ABC methods are mathematically well-founded, but they inevitably make assumptions and approximations whose impact needs to be carefully assessed. Furthermore, the wider application domain of ABC exacerbates the challenges of parameter estimation and model selection. ABC has rapidly gained popularity over the last years and in particular for the analysis of complex problems arising in biological sciences (e.g., in population genetics, ecology, epidemiology, and systems biology).

The biological interpretation of gene lists with interesting shared properties, such as up- or down-regulation in a particular experiment, is typically accomplished using gene ontology enrichment analysis tools. Given a list of genes, a gene ontology (GO) enrichment analysis may return hundreds of statistically significant GO results in a “flat” list, which can be challenging to summarize. It can also be difficult to keep pace with rapidly expanding biological knowledge, which often results in daily changes to any of the over 47,000 gene ontologies that describe biological knowledge. GOATOOLS, a Python-based library, makes it more efficient to stay current with the latest ontologies and annotations, perform gene ontology enrichment analyses to determine over- and under-represented terms, and organize results for greater clarity and easier interpretation using a novel GOATOOLS GO grouping method. We performed functional analyses on both stochastic simulation data and real data from a published RNA-seq study to compare the enrichment results from GOATOOLS to two other popular tools: DAVID and GOstats. GOATOOLS is freely available through GitHub: https://github.com/tanghaibao/goatools.

BackgroundA major bottleneck in our understanding of the molecular underpinnings of life is the assignment of function to proteins. While molecular experiments provide the most reliable annotation of proteins, their relatively low throughput and restricted purview have led to an increasing role for computational function prediction. However, assessing methods for protein function prediction and tracking progress in the field remain challenging.ResultsWe conducted the second critical assessment of functional annotation (CAFA), a timed challenge to assess computational methods that automatically assign protein function. We evaluated 126 methods from 56 research groups for their ability to predict biological functions using Gene Ontology and gene-disease associations using Human Phenotype Ontology on a set of 3681 proteins from 18 species. CAFA2 featured expanded analysis compared with CAFA1, with regards to data set size, variety, and assessment metrics. To review progress in the field, the analysis compared the best methods from CAFA1 to those of CAFA2.ConclusionsThe top-performing methods in CAFA2 outperformed those from CAFA1. This increased accuracy can be attributed to a combination of the growing number of experimental annotations and improved methods for function prediction. The assessment also revealed that the definition of top-performing algorithms is ontology specific, that different performance metrics can be used to probe the nature of accurate predictions, and the relative diversity of predictions in the biological process and human phenotype ontologies. While there was methodological improvement between CAFA1 and CAFA2, the interpretation of results and usefulness of individual methods remain context-dependent.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13059-016-1037-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Recent research into structural variants (SVs) has established their importance to medicine and molecular biology, elucidating their role in various diseases, regulation of gene expression, ethnic diversity, and large-scale chromosome evolution—giving rise to the differences within populations and among species. Nevertheless, characterizing SVs and determining the optimal approach for a given experimental design remains a computational and scientific challenge. Multiple approaches have emerged to target various SV classes, zygosities, and size ranges. Here, we review these approaches with respect to their ability to infer SVs across the full spectrum of large, complex variations and present computational methods for each approach.

Accurate genome-wide identification of orthologs is a central problem in comparative genomics, a fact reflected by the numerous orthology identification projects developed in recent years. However, only a few reports have compared their accuracy, and indeed, several recent efforts have not yet been systematically evaluated. Furthermore, orthology is typically only assessed in terms of function conservation, despite the phylogeny-based original definition of Fitch. We collected and mapped the results of nine leading orthology projects and methods (COG, KOG, Inparanoid, OrthoMCL, Ensembl Compara, Homologene, RoundUp, EggNOG, and OMA) and two standard methods (bidirectional best-hit and reciprocal smallest distance). We systematically compared their predictions with respect to both phylogeny and function, using six different tests. This required the mapping of millions of sequences, the handling of hundreds of millions of predicted pairs of orthologs, and the computation of tens of thousands of trees. In phylogenetic analysis or in functional analysis where high specificity is required, we find that OMA and Homologene perform best. At lower functional specificity but higher coverage level, OrthoMCL outperforms Ensembl Compara, and to a lesser extent Inparanoid. Lastly, the large coverage of the recent EggNOG can be of interest to build broad functional grouping, but the method is not specific enough for phylogenetic or detailed function analyses. In terms of general methodology, we observe that the more sophisticated tree reconstruction/reconciliation approach of Ensembl Compara was at times outperformed by pairwise comparison approaches, even in phylogenetic tests. Furthermore, we show that standard bidirectional best-hit often outperforms projects with more complex algorithms. First, the present study provides guidance for the broad community of orthology data users as to which database best suits their needs. Second, it introduces new methodology to verify orthology. And third, it sets performance standards for current and future approaches.