 Proceedings
 Open Access
Inferring the global structure of chromosomes from structural variations
 Tomohiro Yasuda^{1, 2} and
 Satoru Miyano^{1}Email author
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471216416S2S13
© Yasuda and Miyano; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2015
 Published: 21 January 2015
The Erratum to this article has been published in BMC Genomics 2015 16:276
Abstract
Background
Next generation sequencing (NGS) technologies have made it possible to exhaustively detect structural variations (SVs) in genomes. Although various methods for detecting SVs have been developed, the global structure of chromosomes, i.e., how segments in a reference genome are extracted and ordered in an unknown target genome, cannot be inferred by detecting only individual SVs.
Results
Here, we formulate the problem of inferring the global structure of chromosomes from SVs as an optimization problem on a bidirected graph. This problem takes into account the aberrant adjacencies of genomic regions, the copy numbers, and the number and length of chromosomes. Although the problem is NPcomplete, we propose its polynomialtime solvable variation by restricting instances of the problem using a biologically meaningful condition, which we call the weakly connected constraint. We also explain how to obtain experimental data that satisfies the weakly connected constraint.
Conclusion
Our results establish a theoretical foundation for the development of practical computational tools that could be used to infer the global structure of chromosomes based on SVs. The computational complexity of the inference can be reduced by detecting the segments of the reference genome at the ends of the chromosomes of the target genome and also the segments that are known to exist in the target genome.
Keywords
 Next Generation Sequencing
 Reference Genome
 Copy Number Variation
 Hamiltonian Cycle
 Global Structure
Background
Nextgeneration sequencing (NGS) technologies have drastically reduced the cost of genome sequencing [1]. As more genomic sequences have become available, it has become clear that genomes contain many structural variations (SVs), which include large insertions, deletions, tandem duplications, and translocations. SVs have already been associated with diverse diseases [2]. For example, the fusion genes BCRABL and EML4ALK play key roles in the development of cancer, and it is believed that other recurrent rearrangements remain to be discovered [3]. In cancer genomes, many SVs are occasionally concentrated in a small region of the genome [4–6]. It has been suggested that a single catastrophic mutational event, known as chromothripsis [6], causes these concentrations. A study of prostate cancer also uncovered a distinct type of complex rearrangement termed chromoplexy [7, 8], wherein rearrangements are unclustered but involve multiple chromosomes. Complex genomic rearrangements have even been observed in germline mutations, resulting in serious congenital diseases [9]. Because of their importance in functions of the genome, various methods have been developed for finding SVs [10–16]. When genomic rearrangements are complex, enumerating only individual SVs is insufficient for elucidating the global structure of chromosomes, i.e., how the segments in a reference genome are extracted and ordered in an unknown target genome. Here, the reference genome is known and is a preexisting sequenced genome of the same organism, such as the GRCh38 build of the human genome [17].
In this study, we address the problem of inferring the global structure of chromosomes based on SV data, which refer to aberrant adjacencies of genomic regions and copy number variations (CNVs) in this study. By solving this problem, we can determine the order of the genomic regions in the target genome. This order affects the structure of proteins if the genomic regions contain coding regions, and regulation of genes if the genomic regions include promoters or enhancers. In addition, raw SV data could be corrected by inferring the global structure of chromosomes because an optimal global structure would ignore false positive detection of aberrant adjacencies or correct wrongly estimated copy numbers. The task of inferring chromosomes is formulated as an optimization problem on a graph, which we term as a chromosome graph. Our contributions are summarized as follows:

To infer the global structure of chromosomes, we formulate a computational problem that takes into account the number and length of chromosomes, as well as aberrant adjacencies and CNVs caused by genomic rearrangements. By taking SV data as the input, relatively lowdepth NGS sequencing can be used.

We prove that the problem is NPcomplete.

We propose a biologically meaningful restriction that makes the problem solvable in polynomial time. We also show an algorithm that solves the restricted problem.
Oesper et al. [18] presented a pioneering work that aimed to infer the global structure of chromosomes from SV data. They formulated the copy number and adjacency genome reconstruction problem. Their formulation is based on graphs that they termed intervaladjacency graphs. These graphs are essentially the same as our chromosome graphs, except that we used bidirected graphs [19, 20] while they used alternating paths to exclude paths on the graph that do not correspond to chromosomes. They also implemented an efficient algorithm called pairedend reconstruction of genome organization (PREGO) that solved their problem and obtained promising results. Our work includes the following results that were not addressed by Oesper et al. First, we present a formulation that takes into account the number and length of chromosomes determined experimentally. Second, we prove that the problem is NPcomplete. Finally, we propose a variation of the problem that can be solved in polynomial time.
Some methods can also be applied to analyze the global structure of genomes by using nonSV data. First, de novo sequence assembly aims at reconstructing target genomes from raw NGS sequences [19, 21–25]. It includes a step to order fragments of genomes obtained by assembling NGS sequences. The step is usually implemented as an optimization problem, involving searching for paths that cover all vertices or all edges corresponding to substrings of genome sequences [19, 21]. By contrast, we allow some vertices and edges to be ignored because some portions of the reference genome might not appear in the target genome. Second, referenceassisted assembly [26], also known as comparative assembly [27], aims at ordering segments of an unknown target genome by using known genomes of other organisms. By contrast, we order segments so that the chromosomes in the solution are most consistent with the SV data and the experimentally determined number and length of chromosomes. Finally, methods based on permutations of integers [28] compare two genomes represented by two sequences of integers corresponding to genes or markers in the genome. Instead of using such sequences, we exploit SV data.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. First, we present types of experimental data from which we infer the global structure of chromosomes. Next, we give our formulation of the problem of inferring the global structure of chromosomes, and show that the problem is NPcomplete. Then, we show a variation of the problem that is solvable in polynomial time. Finally, we discuss our results and state our conclusions.
Results
Experimental data
We assume the following experimental data as input.
Aberrant adjacencies
Copy numbers
The number of occurrences of a subsequence in the reference genome may change because of rearrangements. This phenomenon results in copy number variations (CNVs). Traditionally, CNVs have been analyzed by using DNA microarrays [11]. Several recent methods detect CNVs by finding changes in the depth of coverage of NGS sequences [4, 15]. Although tumor samples are usually a mixture of normal cells and various tumor cells, the copy numbers of a cancer cell can still be estimated by singlecell analysis [29]. In this paper, for the sake of conciseness, the boundaries of CNVs are also called breakpoints.
Number of chromosomes and truncations
Identifying chromosomes and finding aberrant chromosomes by microscopy is an important part of clinical diagnostics [30]. The number of chromosomes, denoted by n_{ N } in this paper, is available after inspection. Throughout this paper, we assume that n_{ N } ≥ 1. In addition, we also take into account the number of chromosomal truncations, which we denote as n_{ T }. Chromosomal truncations are detected as a decrease in copy numbers without aberrant adjacencies. We consider n_{ N } and n_{ T } to improve the inference of the global structure of chromosomes from SV data.
Chromosome length
The length of chromosomes can be estimated experimentally from flow karyotyping, and, approximately, from microscopic images [31]. Here, the estimated length is denoted by λ_{ i } for 1 ≤ i ≤ N_{ L }, where N_{ L }(≥ n_{ N }) is the maximum possible number of chromosomes.
Problem definition
Any instance of our problem is modeled as a graph that we term a chromosome graph. The graph contains elements derived from the reference genome and experimental data. Each vertex corresponds to a location in the reference genome. In addition, each edge corresponds to either a segment in the reference genome, an adjacency of flanking segments in the reference genome, or an aberrant adjacency in the target genome caused by rearrangements.
We assume that the target genome is a set of chromosomes, each of which is a concatenation of segments in the reference genome. Each chromosome in the target genome is represented as a path on the graph, and these paths explain how segments in the reference genome are incorporated into the target genome. The goodness of the estimated target genome is measured by a cost function, and we search for an optimal set of chromosomes that minimizes this cost function.
We first define a graph that contains some of elements described above. Then, we extend the graph to a chromosome graph. Finally, we present the formal definition of the problem.
Prototype chromosome graph

Vertices corresponding to breakpoints:${V}_{M}=\left\{{v}_{i,j}1\le i\le {N}_{C},\phantom{\rule{2.77695pt}{0ex}}1\le j\le {n}_{i}\right\}.$

Vertices corresponding to the beginning of chromosomes in the reference genome:${V}_{5}=\left\{{v}_{i,0}1\le i\le {N}_{C}\right\}.$

Vertices corresponding to the end of chromosomes in the reference genome:${V}_{3}=\left\{{v}_{i,{n}_{i+1}}1\le i\le {N}_{C}\right\}.$
Then, we define V = V_{5} ∪ V_{3} ∪ V_{ M }.
Next, we define a set of edges, E. We make the following two types of edges.

Edges corresponding to segments between two breakpoints that are next to each other in the reference genome. For each 1 ≤ i ≤ N_{ C }and 0 ≤ j ≤ n_{ i }, we make an edge e_{ i,j }= (v_{ i,j }, v_{ i,j }_{+1}).

Edges corresponding to aberrant adjacency of two segments in the reference genome. Let N_{ A }be the number of detected aberrant adjacencies. For the kth aberrant adjacency (1 ≤ k ≤ N_{ A }) that links positions corresponding to ${v}_{{i}_{1},{j}_{1}}$ and ${v}_{{i}_{2},{j}_{2}}$, we make an edge ${e}_{Lk}=\left({v}_{{i}_{1},{j}_{1}},{v}_{{i}_{2},{j}_{2}}\right)$.
Chromosome graph

Each vertex v_{ i,j }∈ V_{ M }is split into two vertices ${v}_{i,j}^{+}$ and ${v}_{i,j}^{}$. The set V_{ M }is redefined as${V}_{M}=\left\{{v}_{i,j}^{},\phantom{\rule{2.77695pt}{0ex}}{v}_{i,j}^{+}1\le i\le {N}_{C},\phantom{\rule{2.77695pt}{0ex}}1\le j\le {n}_{i}\right\}.$

An edge e_{ i,j }= (v_{ i,j }, v_{i,j+1}) ∈ E_{ S }is reconnected to ${v}_{i,j}^{}$ and ${v}_{i,j+1}^{+}$. In addition, $d\left({e}_{i,j},{v}_{i,j}^{}\right)=$ and $d\left({e}_{i,j},{v}_{i,j+1}^{+}\right)=+$.

Let e ∈ E_{ L }be an edge connected to v_{ i,j }in the prototype chromosome graph. If e corresponds to an aberrant adjacency involving the segment that stretches toward v_{i,j+1}, e is reconnected to ${v}_{i,j}^{}$ and $d\left(e,{v}_{i,j}^{}\right)$ is set to '+'. Otherwise, e is reconnected to ${v}_{i,j}^{+}$ and $d\left(e,{v}_{i,j}^{+}\right)$ is set to '−'.

We add the following set of new edges:${E}_{R}=\left\{{\widehat{e}}_{i,j}=\left({v}_{i,j}^{+},\phantom{\rule{2.77695pt}{0ex}}{v}_{i,j}^{}\right)1\le i\le {N}_{C},\phantom{\rule{2.77695pt}{0ex}}1\le i\le {n}_{i}\right\}.$
Directions are set so that $d\left({\widehat{e}}_{i,j},{v}_{i,j}^{+}\right)=$ and $d\left({\widehat{e}}_{i,j},{v}_{i,j}^{}\right)=+$.
The modified graph represents a chromosome graph.
Paths and chromosomes
A path c = v_{1}e_{1}v_{2}e_{2}v_{3} ... e_{ l }v_{l+1}on a chromosome graph G is an alternating sequence of vertices and edges, which has the following properties:

The first and the last of c are vertices.

Any subsequence of the form e_{ k }v_{ k }e_{k+1}(1 ≤ k ≤ l) means that d(e_{ k }, v_{ k }) = −d(e_{k+1}, v_{ k }).
A path c is said to visit an edge e if c contains e. Similarly, c is said to visit a vertex v if c contains v. When a path is written as a sequence of vertices and edges, for simplicity, we omit the notation of the vertices if they are clear. Let C = {c_{1}, c_{2},..., c_{C}} be a multiset of paths on G. We define C as a multiset so that more than one identical path can exist. In addition, let m(c, e) be the number of times c visits an edge e, and $m\left(C,e\right)={\sum}_{{c}_{i}\in C}m\left({c}_{i},e\right)$. A cycle is a path whose first and last vertices are identical and the directions of the first and the last edges at the vertex are opposite. A chromosome on G is a path whose first and last edges are both in E_{ S }.
Copy numbers and lengths
Upper bound on parameters
Campbell et al. [4] presented examples of amplified regions in cancer cells. The copy numbers were less than 100 in these regions. Therefore, we assume that the copy numbers are in at most hundreds. We also assume that short repeat elements are masked in advance in order to exclude segments that appear spuriously. Based on the details given above, we assume that n_{ N }, n_{ T }, and n(e) for e ∈ E_{ S } are all less than a fixed constant U. The value of U does not have to be determined because U is only used in the analysis of computational complexity.
Formulation of the problem
To find an optimal set of chromosomes, we define an optimization problem over a chromosome graph. We define a cost function to be used as a target function of the optimization problem. This function imposes costs on the number of chromosomes, the number of chromosomal truncations, and the number of visits to edges, penalizing for deviations from those that are experimentally expected.
Let C = {c_{1}, c_{2},..., c_{C}} be a multiset of chromosomes on G, and w_{ N }(C) be the cost of the difference between n_{ N } and C. Also let Tr(C) be the number of ends of chromosomes in V_{ M }, and w_{ T } (C) be the cost of the difference between n_{ T } and Tr(C). In addition, w(e, x) for e ∈ E_{ S } is defined as the cost when e is visited xtimes. For e ∈ E_{ L } ∪ E_{ R }, w(e, x) is set to 0.
With these notations, we formulate the problem of inferring the global structure of chromosomes as follows:
Definition 1 (Chromosome problem (ChrP)) Suppose that we are given a chromosome graph G = (V,E), a cost function W(C), and parameters λ_{ i } (1 ≤ i ≤ N_{ L }), where N_{ L } is the maximum possible number of chromosomes. Then, find a multiset of chromosomes C on G that minimizes W(C) under the constraint that c_{ i } ≤ λ_{ i } for c_{ i } ∈ C.
Although a similar problem was proposed previously [18], its computational complexity was not analyzed.
Theorem 1 ChrP is NPcomplete.
In the Methods section, we prove Theorem 1.
Polynomialtime solvable variation
where Q_{ N } and Q_{ T } are constants given as parameters. The values of Q_{ N } and Q_{ T } are tuned in advance so that known global structures of genomes are well reconstructed.
Weakly connected constraint
Let G = (V, E) be a general bidirected graph. A subgraph g of G is a weakly connected component if g is a connected component when all directions are removed [33]. In addition, g is maximal if g is not a subgraph of a larger weakly connected component. For a subset E' of E, we define CC(G,E') as a set of maximal weakly connected components of a graph induced from G by removing the edges not in E'.
Definition 2 (Weakly connected constraint (WCC)) Let G = (V, E) be a chromosome graph. Also let V_{ W } and E_{ W } be subsets of V and E, respectively. Each g ∈ CC(G, E_{ W }) is good if g contains at least one vertex in V_{ W }. Then, G satisfies the weakly connected constraint (WCC) if all g ∈ CC(G, E_{ W }) are good.
Definition 3 (Chromosome problem with WCC (ChrW)) Let G = (V,E) be a chromosome graph that satisfies WCC with respect to some V_{ W } ⊂ V and E_{ W } ⊂ E. Then, find a set C of chromosomes on G that minimizes W(C) when (3) is satisfied.
Theorem 2 The problem ChrW can be solved in O(E_{2} log V  log E) time.
See the Methods section for the algorithm that solves ChrW.
Restriction on the length of chromosomes
In ChrW, we removed restrictions on the length of chromosomes. This relaxation is necessary to make the problem solvable in polynomial time.
Definition 4 (ChrW with restriction on length (ChrL)) ChrW with restriction on length (ChrL) is the same problem as ChrW, except that the length of each chromosome c_{ i } is bounded by a parameter λ_{ i } (1 ≤ i ≤ N_{ L }), where N_{ L } is the maximum possible number of chromosomes.
Theorem 3 The problem ChrL is NPcomplete.
See the Methods section for proof that problem ChrL is NPcomplete.
Discussion
Handling practical situations
Solutions to the chromosome problems are affected by errors in given SV data. However, some errors can be mitigated as follows. First, a false positive aberrant adjacency may be correctly ignored in the optimal solution because a set of chromosomes that uses such an adjacency is expected to have a larger cost than those ignoring the adjacency. Second, the effects of a missing aberrant adjacency may be limited to segments including its ends because a chromosome that contains the missing adjacency may be recognized as two split chromosomes. Finally, there is a chance that incorrect copy numbers will be corrected if they are inconsistent with other SVs.
In addition to segments in the reference genome, our method can handle newly inserted fragments not in the reference genome. Such a fragment is incorporated Yasuda and Miyano Page 6 of 11 into a chromosome graph as a new chromosome. In particular, an edge e, where e is equal to the length of the fragment, is added to E_{ S }, and edges that connect vertices in a chromosome graph to e are added to E_{ L }. If any breakpoints are contained within the new fragment, vertices and edges are added to V_{ M } and E_{ R }, respectively. If a breakpoint corresponds to any aberrant adjacency, edges are also added to E_{ L }.
If a gene duplication has occurred in the target genome, it causes an increased copy number and aberrant adjacencies flanking the gene. If it is a tandem duplication, an aberrant adjacency connecting the upstream and downstream regions of the gene should exist. If these SVs exist in given SV data, any solution to our problem has to take into account gene duplication.
Limitations
A mixture of many cells cannot be handled because it is difficult to correctly estimate copy numbers. However, our method may generate meaningful results for data obtained from multiple cells if the sum of copy numbers is correctly estimated. In this case, the solution is a mixture of chromosomes of all cells in the sample, although some of the chromosomes might be fused.
Toward implementation
For implementation, we require an algorithm that can calculate an optimal circulation on the bidirected graph. It would be difficult to implement Gabow's algorithm because no efficient implementation is currently known. Another option would be to use Medvedev's algorithm [19]. Any solver for general integer programming could also be used, as demonstrated by Oesper et al. [18], although the computational time bound is not guaranteed.
Conclusions
Continuing technological innovations in DNA sequencing will, in future, allow the prediction of an enormous number of SVs. However, detecting only individual SVs cannot reveal the global structure of chromosomes. Here, we formulated the problem of inferring chromosomes from the aberrant adjacencies of genomic regions, copy number variations (CNVs), and the number and length of chromosomes. The problem, which we term as the chromosome problem (ChrP), was proved to be NPcomplete. However, if an instance of ChrP satisfies a constraint, which we call a weakly connected constraint (WCC), and if the length of chromosomes is ignored, the problem can be solved in O(E^{2} log V  log E) time.
This work provides a theoretical basis for the development of practical computational tools that are emerging for use in analysis of the global structure of chromosomes based on SVs.
Methods
In this section, we show how we proved the theorems stated in the Results section.
Proof of Theorem 1
We first present an upper bound on the size of an optimal solution of ChrP to show that ChrP is in NP. Then, we prove that ChrP is NPhard.
Lemma 1 Let G = (V, E) be a chromosome graph. Also, let C be a multiset of chromosomes on G that minimizes W(C) such that c_{ i } ≤ λ_{ i } for c_{ i } ∈ C. Then, C has at most U(4V + 1)(E + 1) edges.
Chromosomes such that t_{ c } = 0 can exist only if they contribute to the decrease of the first or the second term of W(C) defined by (1). Accordingly, the number of such chromosomes is, at most, n_{ N } +n_{ T }. In addition, a chromosome c, such that t_{ c } = 0, does not contain any cycles because such a cycle can be removed to decrease W(C). Therefore, at most, c visits 2V vertices and, thus, 2V edges.
Consequently, C contains, at most, 2V(n_{ N } +n_{ T } ) + (4V +1) P_{ e }***_{ E }S n(e) ≤ U(4V +1)(E+1) edges.
Lemma 2 The problem ChrP is in NP.
Proof Once an optimal solution C is given, whether or not W(C) is greater than a given constant can be determined in O(V E) time by Lemma 1. □
Lemma 3 The problem ChrP is NPhard.
In addition, we set n_{ N } = 1, n_{ T } = 0, and λ_{ i } = V' + 3 for any i. Then, we prove that H has a Hamiltonian cycle if, and only if, ChrP on G has a solution C such that W(C) = 0. Suppose that h is a Hamiltonian cycle on H. Let c be a chromosome that begins with ${e}_{1,0}{\widehat{e}}_{1,1}{e}_{1,1}$ and then visits ${e}_{{i}^{\prime}:i}{e}_{i,1}$ in the order that edges $\left({v}_{{i}^{\prime}},{v}_{i}\right)$ appear in h from i' = 1, and finally ends with ${e}_{1,1}{\widehat{e}}_{1,2}{e}_{1,2}$. Then, a set of a single chromosome C = {c} satisfies W(C) = 0 and $\leftc\right=\left{V}^{\prime}\right+3\le {\lambda}_{1}$.
Conversely, let C be a solution of ChrP that satisfies W(C) = 0. Because (2) holds, C = 1, Tr(C) = 0, and m(C, e) = n(e). Let c be the only chromosome in C. Because n(e_{1,1}) = 2 and n(e_{i,1}) = 1 for 2 ≤ i ≤ V', a path that visits vertices ${v}_{i}^{\prime}\in {V}^{\prime}$ in the order that e_{i,1 }appears in c is a Hamiltonian cycle on H. □
Theorem 1 directly follows Lemma 2 and 3.
Proof of Theorem 2
Circulation on a bidirected graph
Also let b_{ v } be an integer defined for each v ∈ V, Z be the set of nonnegative integers, and l(e) and u(e) be two nonnegative integers assigned to each edge e ∈ E called a lower bound and an upper bound, respectively. Unless otherwise specified, in this study l(e) = 0 and u(e) = ∞.
The cost of f is defined as W(f) = ∑_{e∈E}w(f, e), where w(f, e) is a cost of f on e ∈ E. A circulation is a biflow such that b_{ v } = 0 for any v ∈ V.
Circular chromosome graph
where ${v}_{{i}_{1},{j}_{1}}$ and ${v}_{{i}_{2},{j}_{2}}$are vertices at the ends of e. The graph$\stackrel{\u0303}{G}=\left(V\cup \left\{{v}_{N},{v}_{T}\right\},E\cup {E}_{N}\cup {E}_{D}\right)$is called a circular chromosome graph.
Conversely, for any circulation f on$\stackrel{\u0303}{G}$ that minimizes W ( f ), there is a multiset C of chromosomes on G that satisfies (6). In addition, C can be calculated in $O\left({\sum}_{e\in E\cup {E}_{N}\cup {E}_{D}}f\left(e\right)\right)$time.
Let E_{+} = {e ∈ E ∪ E_{ N } ∪ E_{ D }l(e) ≥ 1 or n(e) ≥ 1}. Note that $\mathsf{\text{CC}}\left(\stackrel{\u0303}{G},E+\right)$ has only one weakly connected component because of WCC.
Therefore, because e = 0 for e ∈ E_{ L }∪ E_{ R }∪{e_{ t }(v)v ∈ V} and w(f, e) = ef(e), f satisfies (6).
Conversely, let f be a circulation on $\stackrel{\u0303}{G}$ that minimizes W(f). We show how to construct a multiset C of chromosomes on G that satisfies (6).
First, for e ∈ E_{ S } ∪ {e_{ N }, e_{ T }}, we subtract $f\left(\u0113\right)$ from f(e), and also set $f\left(\u0113\right)$ to 0.
Second, we construct a set R of cycles such that m(R, e) = f(e) for any edge e in $\stackrel{\u0303}{G}$. For directed graphs, the flow decomposition theorem [35] ensures that such R can be obtained in $O\left({\sum}_{e\in E\cup {E}_{N}\cup {E}_{D}}f\left(e\right)\right)$ time. This is also true for bidirected graphs.
Third, we merge cycles in R. Whenever a vertex is shared by two cycles in R, they are merged into a single cycle. Because of WCC, $\mathsf{\text{CC}}\left(\stackrel{\u0303}{G},E+\right)$ consists of only one weakly connected component. This implies that all cycles that contain edges in E_{+} can be merged into a single cycle. Note that any r ∈ R contains at least one edge in E_{+}, because otherwise r can be removed to decrease W(f). Therefore, all cycles in R can be merged into a single cycle $\stackrel{\u0303}{r}$.
Finally, let C be a multiset of paths generated by removal of v_{ N }, v_{ T }, and edges in E_{ N } from $\stackrel{\u0303}{r}$. Because c ∈ C is connected to edges in E_{ N } in $\stackrel{\u0303}{r}$, the first and last edge of c is in E_{ S } due to the directions of these edges. Accordingly, c is a chromosome. Therefore, C is a multiset of chromosomes on G.
Therefore, C satisfies (6).
By Lemma 4, the solution of ChrW can be obtained by calculating a circulation f on $\stackrel{\u0303}{G}$ that minimizes W(f). By Lemma 1, setting u(e) = U(4V + 1)(E + 1) does not affect the solution. In addition, E_{ N } = O(E) and E_{ D } = O(E). Accordingly, the circulation f can be calculated in O(E_{2} log V log E) time by using Gabow's algorithm [20]. Therefore, the optimal solution can be calculated in O(E_{2} log V log E) time.
Proof of Theorem 3
ChrL is in NP because of Lemma 1.
is called the partition problem (hereafter referred to as PARTITION) [34]. It is well known that PARTITION is NPcomplete. We reduce PARTITION to ChrL by constructing a chromosome graph whose solution for ChrL contains two chromosomes that correspond to two subsets of a solution of PARTITION.
Then, W(C) = 0 because C = n + 2, Tr(C) = 0, and m(C, e) = n(e) for e ∈ E_{ S }. In addition, C visits all required edges. Furthermore, c_{ i } = 10Σ ≤ λ_{ i } for 1 ≤ i ≤ n + 2.
The modified C still satisfies the required conditions. After this modification is repeated for 2 ≤ i ≤ n until no more modifications can be applied, C satisfies ${c}_{i}={e}_{i,0}{\widehat{e}}_{1,1}{e}_{i,1}{\widehat{e}}_{i,2}{e}_{i,2}$ for 1 ≤ i ≤ n. Another chromosome exists that visits e_{i,1 }for each 1 ≤ i ≤ n, which is one of c_{n+1 }and c_{n+2}. Let S' = {im(c_{n+1}, e_{i,1}) >0}. Then, ∑_{i∈S'}s(i) = 10S_{Σ} − (9/2+5)S_{Σ} = 1/2S_{Σ}. Therefore, S' is a solution of PARTITION.
Notes
Declarations
Declarations
TY would like to acknowledge financial support from the Human Genome Center, Institute of Medical Science, University of Tokyo.
This article has been published as part of BMC Genomics Volume 16 Supplement 2, 2015: Selected articles from the Thirteenth Asia Pacific Bioinformatics Conference (APBC 2015): Genomics. The full contents of the supplement are available online at http://0www.biomedcentral.com.brum.beds.ac.uk/bmcgenomics/supplements/16/S2
Authors’ Affiliations
References
 DNA Sequencing Costs: [http://www.genome.gov/sequencingcosts/]
 Weischenfeldt J, Symmons O, Spitz F, Korbel JO: Phenotypic impact of genomic structural variation: insights from and for human disease. Nat Rev Genet. 2013, 14 (2): 125138. 10.1038/nrg3373.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Bashir A, Volik S, Collins C, Bafna V, Raphael BJ: Evaluation of pairedend sequencing strategies for detection of genome rearrangements in cancer. PLoSComputBiol. 2008, 4 (4): 1000051Yasuda and Miyano Page 10 of 11Google Scholar
 Campbell PJ, Stephens PJ, Pleasance ED, O'Meara S, Li H, Santarius T, Stebbings LA, Leroy C, Edkins S, Hardy C, Teague JW, Menzies A, Goodhead I, Turner DJ, Clee CM, Quail MA, Cox A, Brown C, Durbin R, Hurles ME, Edwards PAW, Bignell GR, Stratton MR, Futreal PA: Identification of somatically acquired rearrangements in cancer using genomewide massively parallel pairedend sequencing. Nat Genet. 2008, 40 (6): 7229. 10.1038/ng.128.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Malhotra A, Lindberg MR, Faust GG, Leibowitz ML, Clark RA, Layer R, Quinlan AR, Hall IM: Breakpoint profiling of 64 cancer genomes reveals numerous complex rearrangements spawned by homologyindependent mechanisms. Genome Res. 2013, 23 (5): 762776. 10.1101/gr.143677.112.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Stephens PJ, Greenman CD, Fu B, Yang F, Bignell GR, Mudie LJ, Pleasance ED, Lau KW, Beare D, Stebbings LA, et al: Massive genomic rearrangement acquired in a single catastrophic event during cancer development. Cell. 2011, 144 (1): 2740. 10.1016/j.cell.2010.11.055.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Shen MM: Chromoplexy: A new category of complex rearrangements in the cancer genome. Cancer Cell. 2013, 23 (5): 567569. 10.1016/j.ccr.2013.04.025.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Van Allen, et al: Punctuated evolution of prostate cancer genomes. Cell. 2013, 153 (3): 666677. 10.1016/j.cell.2013.03.021.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Kloosterman WP, TavakoliYaraki M, van Roosmalen MJ, vanBinsbergen E, Renkens I, Duran K, Ballarati L, Vergult S, Giardino D, Hansson K, Ruivenkamp CAL, Jager M, vanHaeringen A, Ippel EF, Haaf T, Passarge E, Hochstenbach R, Menten B, Larizza L, Guryev V, Poot M, Cuppen E: Constitutional chromothripsis rearrangements involve clustered doublestranded DNA breaks and nonhomologous repair mechanisms. Cell Rep. 2012, 1 (6): 64855. 10.1016/j.celrep.2012.05.009.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Mills RE, Walter K, Stewart C, Handsaker RE, Chen K, Alkan C, Abyzov A, Yoon SC, Ye K, Cheetham RK, Chinwalla A, Conrad DF, Fu Y, Grubert F, Hajirasouliha I, Hormozdiari F, Iakoucheva LM, Iqbal Z, Kang S, Kidd JM, Konkel MK, Korn J, Khurana E, Kural D, Lam HYK, Leng J, Li R, Li Y, Lin CY, Luo R, et al: 1000 genomes project: Mapping copy number variation by populationscale genome sequencing. Nature. 2011, 470 (7332): 5965. 10.1038/nature09708.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Medvedev P, Stanciu M, Brudno M: Computational methods for discovering structural variation with nextgeneration sequencing. Nat Methods. 2009, 6: 1320. 10.1038/nmeth.1374.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Chen K, Wallis JW, McLellan MD, Larson DE, Kalicki JM, Pohl CS, McGrath SD, Wendl MC, Zhang Q, Locke DP, Shi X, Fulton RS, Ley TJ, Wilson RK, Ding L, Mardis ER: BreakDancer: an algorithm for highresolution mapping of genomic structural variation. Nat Methods. 2009, 6 (9): 677681. 10.1038/nmeth.1363.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Hormozdiari F, Alkan C, Eichler EE, Sahinalp SC: Combinatorial algorithms for structural variation detection in highthroughput sequenced genomes. Genome Res. 2009, 19 (7): 12701278. 10.1101/gr.088633.108.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Quinlan AR, Clark RA, Sokolova S, Leibowitz ML, Zhang Y, Hurles ME, Mell JC, Hall IM: Genomewide mapping and assembly of structural variant breakpoints in the mouse genome. Genome Res. 2010, 20 (5): 623635. 10.1101/gr.102970.109.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Abyzov A, Urban AE, Snyder M, Gerstein M: CNVnator: An approach to discover, genotype, and characterize typical and atypical CNVs from family and population genome sequencing. Genome Res. 2011, 21 (6): 974984. 10.1101/gr.114876.110.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Ye K, Schulz MH, Long Q, Apweiler R, Ning Z: Pindel: a pattern growth approach to detect break points of large deletions and medium sized insertions from pairedend short reads. Bioinformatics. 2009, 25 (21): 28652871. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp394.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Genome Reference Consortium: [http://0www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.brum.beds.ac.uk/projects/genome/assembly/grc/human/]
 Oesper L, Ritz A, Aerni S, Drebin R, Raphael B: Reconstructing cancer genomes from pairedend sequencing data. BMC Bioinformatics. 2012, 13 (Suppl 6): 1010.1186/1471210513S6S10.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Medvedev P, Brudno M: Maximum likelihood genome assembly. J Comput Biol. 2009, 16 (8): 11011116. 10.1089/cmb.2009.0047.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Gabow HN: An efficient reduction technique for degreeconstrained subgraph and bidirected network flow problems. Proceedings of the 15th annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing (STOC). 1983, 448456.Google Scholar
 Nagarajan N, Pop M: Parametric complexity of sequence assembly: Theory and applications to next generation sequencing. J Comput Biol. 2009, 16 (7): 897908. 10.1089/cmb.2009.0005.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Li R, Zhu H, Ruan J, Qian W, Fang X, Shi Z, Li Y, Li S, Shan G, Kristiansen K, Li S, Yang H, Wang J, Wang J: Denovo assembly of human genomes with massively parallel short read sequencing. Genome Res. 2010, 20 (2): 265272. 10.1101/gr.097261.109.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Zerbino DR, Birney E: Velvet: Algorithms for de novo short read assembly using de bruijn graphs. Genome Res. 2008, 18: 821829. 10.1101/gr.074492.107.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Simpson JT, Wong K, Jackman SD, Schein JE, Jones SJM, Birol Ì: ABySS: A parallel assembler for short read sequence data. Genome Res. 2009, 19 (6): 11171123. 10.1101/gr.089532.108.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Gnerre S, MacCallum I, Przybylski D, Ribeiro FJ, Burton JN, Walker BJ, Sharpe T, Hall G, Shea TP, Sykes S, Berlin AM, Aird D, Costello M, Daza R, Williams L, Nicol R, Gnirke A, Nusbaum C, Lander ES, Jaffe DB: Highquality draft assemblies of mammalian genomes from massively parallel sequence data. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011, 108 (4): 15131518. 10.1073/pnas.1017351108.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Kim J, Larkin DM, Cai Q, Asan , Zhang Y, Ge RL, Auvil L, Capitanu B, Zhang G, Lewin HA, Ma J: Referenceassisted chromosome assembly. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2013, 110 (5): 17851790. 10.1073/pnas.1220349110.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Pop M: Genome assembly reborn: recent computational challenges. Brief Bioinform. 2009, 10 (4): 354366. 10.1093/bib/bbp026.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Gaul E, Blanchette M: Ordering partially assembled genomes using gene arrangements. Comparative Genomics. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Edited by: Bourque, G., ElMabrouk, N. 2006, Springer, Germany, 4205: 113128. 10.1007/11864127_10.Google Scholar
 Navin N, Kendall J, Troge J, Andrews P, Rodgers L, McIndoo J, Cook K, Stepansky A, Levy D, Esposito D, Muthuswamy L, Krasnitz A, McCombie WR, Hicks J, Wigler M: Tumour evolution inferred by singlecell sequencing. Nature. 2011, 472 (7341): 9094. 10.1038/nature09807.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Jahani S, Setarehdan SK: Centromere and length detection in artificially straightened highly curved human chromosomes. International Journal of Biological Engineering. 2012, 2 (5): 5661. 10.5923/j.ijbe.20120205.04.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Kasai F, O'Brien PCM, FergusonSmith MA: Afrotheria genome; overestimation of genome size and distinct chromosome GC content revealed by flow karyotyping. Genomics. 2013, 102 (56): 468471. 10.1016/j.ygeno.2013.09.002.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Myers EW: The fragment assembly string graph. Bioinformatics. 2005, 21: 7985.Google Scholar
 Sorge M, van Bevern R, Niedermeier R, Weller M: A new view on rural postman based on Eulerian extension and matching. Journal of Discrete Algorithms. 2012, 16: 1233.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Garey MR, Johnson DS: Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NPCompleteness. 1979, W. H. Freeman & Company, NewYorkGoogle Scholar
 Ahuja RK, Magnanti TL, Orlin JB: Network Flows: Theory, Algorithms, and Applications. 1993, Prentice Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
Copyright
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
Comments
View archived comments (2)