If you are following our developments on Pandora’s Toolbox, here is an update.
1. HMMER - I am using the original HMMER name after discussions with Sean Eddy about the name trademark. Many thanks to him for clarifying the issues.
2. Citation - In the github page, I updated the README file to clarify that users should cite the individual authors and NOT Pandora’s toolbox. I am working on the README file to put together the list of proper citations, but still some have work to do.
3. New Programs - I added tophat and cufflinks to the previous list of programs. Initially, I had difficulty compiling them, but now I am finally successful to fully compile each program in my list. Sailfish was a difficult one, but with help from Rob Patro, I managed to compile that as well. Those changes have not been pushed to github yet.
4. Three programs are absolutely amazing - BWA, DALIGNER and HMMER. They compile, no matter which machine I take them to. C++ and boost-based programs, on the other hand, are giving me the most difficulties.
5. Now that I have the basic structure ready, I am able to fill up holes here and there by adding extra codes. Here is a good example.
One of my collaborators has been asking about programs to assemble a very large genome (>30 gigabases) and mentioned that he was running out memory in his terabyte RAM machine. That problem can be easily solved with KMC+bcalm. So, I wrote a short modifier (kmc_dump_bcalm) that produces kmc output in a format that can be directly fed directly to bcalm. Based on the numbers I have seen, the first and memory intensive step of assembly can be done with only 20-30 gigabytes of RAM.
I like to put together a short manual describing each program, and how they can be used in combination with each other to solve problems efficiently. There are so many really good and memory-efficient programs scattered around at all places that it is a shame that people are still struggling with large libraries and high RAM machines.
I thought about why the efficient programs are not merging with each other and realized that the problem is with credits. Firstly, individual researchers like to develop their own programs and get cited for funding. At the next higher level, those researchers belong to large organizations and those large organizations like to promote their own set of programs. A researcher from Broad institute is not going to give presentation on why BGI’s or EBI’s assemblers are better than theirs and vice versa. Citation, money and hierarchy are stopping us from mixing and matching programs to the fullest extent.
That is why I thought it would worthwhile to try a different model and see whether that helps the community. So, once again, I urge you to NOT cite Pandora’s toolbox. Please cite the individual authors of the programs instead. This is irrespective of my minor modifications made to the code base.