My Publications

 

Background

Proper phosphate signaling is essential for robust growth of Escherichia coli and many other bacteria. The phosphate signal is mediated by a classic two component signal system composed of PhoR and PhoB. The PhoR histidine kinase is responsible for phosphorylating/dephosphorylating the response regulator, PhoB, which controls the expression of genes that aid growth in low phosphate conditions. The mechanism by which PhoR receives a signal of environmental phosphate levels has remained elusive. A transporter complex composed of the PstS, PstC, PstA, and PstB proteins as well as a negative regulator, PhoU, have been implicated in signaling environmental phosphate to PhoR.

 

Results

This work confirms that PhoU and the PstSCAB complex are necessary for proper signaling of high environmental phosphate. Also, we identify residues important in PhoU/PhoR interaction with genetic analysis. Using protein modeling and docking methods, we show an interaction model that points to a potential mechanism for PhoU mediated signaling to PhoR to modify its activity. This model is tested with direct coupling analysis.

 

Conclusions

These bioinformatics tools, in combination with genetic and biochemical analysis, help to identify and test a model for phosphate signaling and may be applicable to several other systems.

 

Background

Analyzing next-generation sequencing data is difficult because datasets are large, second generation sequencing platforms have high error rates, and because each position in the target genome (exome, transcriptome, etc.) is sequenced multiple times. Given these challenges, numerous bioinformatic algorithms have been developed to analyze these data. These algorithms aim to find an appropriate balance between data loss, errors, analysis time, and memory footprint. Typical analysis pipelines require multiple steps. If one or more of these steps is unnecessary, it would significantly decrease compute time and data manipulation to remove the step. One step in many pipelines is PCR duplicate removal, where PCR duplicates arise from multiple PCR products from the same template molecule binding on the flowcell. These are often removed because there is concern they can lead to false positive variant calls. Picard (MarkDuplicates) and SAMTools (rmdup) are the two main softwares used for PCR duplicate removal.

 

Results

Approximately 92 % of the 17+ million variants called were called whether we removed duplicates with Picard or SAMTools, or left the PCR duplicates in the dataset. There were no significant differences between the unique variant sets when comparing the transition/transversion ratios (p = 1.0), percentage of novel variants (p = 0.99), average population frequencies (p = 0.99), and the percentage of protein-changing variants (p = 1.0). Results were similar for variants in the American College of Medical Genetics genes. Genotype concordance between NGS and SNP chips was above 99 % for all genotype groups (e.g., homozygous reference).

 

Conclusions

Our results suggest that PCR duplicate removal has minimal effect on the accuracy of subsequent variant calls.