Efficient way of calculating the number of mismatches between two sets of sequences please?

Question

[Aurelie MLB]

Hello,

I am working with R and Bioconductor packages. I have set big sets of sequences such as:

A=c("TATTCCTAGGTTCGCCT", "TTCCCGTTGCCCAGTGA"....) # length ~ 500
B=c("CTCCACACCAAAGCATC", "AACTGTGAGATTAATCT") # length ~10 000 000

What I would like to know ultimately is which are the sequences from B that match each sequence of A with a most 5 mismatches. e.g.: something like

res$A1
5, 5000,8 000 000...

res$A2
3005, 7560,5 003 542...

I could do loops or some "apply"... but it is taking ages...

I looked on the PDict, matchPDict, vwhichPDict side as well. It is much more efficient. But My sequences are too short: PDict would not let me set the max.mismatch parameter to 5.

As the sequences from A and B are exactly of the same length, I do not need searches or alignments. I probably just need to calculate the number of mismatches directly. But I cannot find a way of doing it really efficiently and quickly.

Any ideas please?

Many thanks

[Devon Ryan]

Are you allowing insertions/deletions or only substitutions?

[Aurelie MLB]

Hello! Only substitutions.

Answer 1

[dariober]

I don't know how slow R is going to be. If you need to do this only once in a while, this simple, almost brute force approach could do (it's python):

import Levenshtein as lv
import time
set1= ["TATTCCTAGGTTCGCCT", "TTCCCGTTGCCCAGTGA"]
set2= ["CTCCACACCAAAGCATC", "AACTGTGAGATTAATCT", "TATTCCTAGGTTCGCCT", "TTCCCGTTGCCCAGTGA", "TTCCCGTTGCCCAGTGC", "TATTCCTAGGTTCGCCA"]

for s1 in set1:
    for s2 in set2:
        d12= lv.distance(s1, s2)
        if d12 < 5:
            print(s1, s2, d12)

For each sequence in set1 it computes the Levenshtein distance with each sequence in set2 and it prints out the pair if the distance is less than 5. For 500 * 10000000 it should take maybe few hours.

[Aurelie MLB]

Hi, thanks a lot for your idea! Unfortunately it does not do the trick for me as I need to run quite often as part as another program...

[GouthamAtla]

Then why don't you convert the above code in to a function and use it ?

[Aurelie MLB]

Thanks a lot! My point was just that I would need a quicker solution as I need to do this hundreds of times...

Answer 2

[Aurelie MLB]

Thanks a lot for your suggestions! I wanted to double check with experts that I was not missing anything obvious already implemented in R. I finally tried to write a C function that does what I need and called it from R. I takes around 400 seconds to run. Amazing compared to R or python!

[dariober]

Well done! For the record, a couple of comments.

1) The python implementation is not as bad as I thought. For 500 * 10,000,000 comparisons it should take around ~1/2 hour or less to calculate the Levenshtein distance (~1500s, see test below):

import Levenshtein as lv
import time
s1= "TATTCCTAGGTTCGCCT"
s2= "TATTCCTAGGTTCGCCN"
t0= time.time()
i= 0
while i < 10000000:
    ld= lv.distance(s1, s2)
    i+=1

t1= time.time()
print((t1-t0)*500) ## >>> ~1516.85

2) You probably realized this already: Since you say that only substitutions are allowed than the Levenshtein distance is unnecessarily expensive to compute. The Hamming distance seems what you need and it should be much faster, I'd guess a 10x faster?

[Devon Ryan]

Possibly more than 10x faster since it's more of a bounded Hamming distance (i.e., the function can simply return once the distance >5).

[Devon Ryan]

400 seconds still seems a bit on the slow end, though I guess it's fast enough.

Answer 3

[Steve Lianoglou]

Perhaps you could still use the efficient string matching function vmatchPattern in Biocondoctor's Biostrings package, like so:

A <- DNAStringSet(A)
B <- DNAStringSet(B)
res <- lapply(A, vmatchPattern, B, max.mismatch=5)

Does that do the trick for you?

[Aurelie MLB]

Hi! Thanks a lot for your answer. I tried this and unfortunately it is still quite slow because of the lapply...I think I would need an algorithm / a function from a package that does all the loop internally (maybe coded in C ?) and that is ultra optimised...

[Steve Lianoglou]

The lapply can't be that slow, though, right? It's only looping through ~ 500 strings.

I'm not doubting that the entire endeavor is slow, but given the small size of A, I guess you're saying it's the vmatchPattern that's actually slow?

[Aurelie MLB]

If vmatchPattern was able to loop internally on A that would probably be a great solution. But unfortunately it does not...