Journal of Pathology Informatics Journal of Pathology Informatics
Contact us | Home | Login   |  Users Online: 339  Print this pageEmail this pageSmall font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 

Table of Contents    
J Pathol Inform 2016,  7:53

Use of application containers and workflows for genomic data analysis

1 Department of Laboratory Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA
2 Department of Laboratory Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven; Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Service, VA Connecticut Healthcare System, West Haven, CT, USA

Date of Submission12-Sep-2016
Date of Acceptance27-Nov-2016
Date of Web Publication30-Dec-2016

Correspondence Address:
Wade L Schulz
Department of Laboratory Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/2153-3539.197197

Rights and Permissions

Background: The rapid acquisition of biological data and development of computationally intensive analyses has led to a need for novel approaches to software deployment. In particular, the complexity of common analytic tools for genomics makes them difficult to deploy and decreases the reproducibility of computational experiments. Methods: Recent technologies that allow for application virtualization, such as Docker, allow developers and bioinformaticians to isolate these applications and deploy secure, scalable platforms that have the potential to dramatically increase the efficiency of big data processing. Results: While limitations exist, this study demonstrates a successful implementation of a pipeline with several discrete software applications for the analysis of next-generation sequencing (NGS) data. Conclusions: With this approach, we significantly reduced the amount of time needed to perform clonal analysis from NGS data in acute myeloid leukemia.

Keywords: Big data, bioinformatics workflow, containerization, genomics

How to cite this article:
Schulz WL, Durant T, Siddon AJ, Torres R. Use of application containers and workflows for genomic data analysis. J Pathol Inform 2016;7:53

How to cite this URL:
Schulz WL, Durant T, Siddon AJ, Torres R. Use of application containers and workflows for genomic data analysis. J Pathol Inform [serial online] 2016 [cited 2022 Jul 6];7:53. Available from:

   Introduction Top

The amount of data available for research is growing at an exponential rate. The recent push for open data has also rapidly increased the availability of biomedical datasets for secondary analysis. Examples include the Yale Open Data Access project, [1] a repository of clinical trial data, and The Cancer Genome  Atlas More Details (TCGA), [2] a project that makes genomic data accessible to researchers after initial findings are released. While these data sets promote ongoing research, the ability to efficiently store, move, and analyze such large repositories is often a bottleneck to analysis. [3]

In addition to the massive growth in volume and availability, novel analyses, including advanced statistical methods and machine learning, often require significant resources for efficient processing. One example of this in biomedical research is the analysis of next generation sequencing (NGS) data. NGS is also known as massively parallel or high-throughput sequencing, as it simultaneously sequences many fragments of DNA, thereby producing enormous amounts of information. These datasets often require several preprocessing steps followed by detailed analysis. In addition to being resource intensive, the reproducibility of computational experiments using these data is often limited due to the complexity of system and software configuration. [4] Some application frameworks have made advances to improve the reproducibility of individual applications and analysis pipelines, [5],[6] but significant work remains to increase this reliability, particularly for experiments performed in resource-limited environments or on computational clusters.

The deployment of complex computational systems is not unique to bioinformatics. As such, there has been significant progress in building virtualization layers for operating systems and more recently, software applications. [7],[8] A current example of this includes the Docker platform (Docker, San Francisco, CA, USA), which allows for the creation and configuration of software containers for deployment on a range of systems. [9],[10] While the use of these technologies has limitations, it also has the potential improve the usability of many software applications in computational biology. As such, several studies and initiatives have begun to focus on the use of Docker in bioinformatics and computer science research. [11],[12],[13] In this paper, we demonstrate the potential benefits of containerized applications and application workflows for computational genomics research.

   Technical Background Top

To augment an ongoing study related to tumor heterogeneity, we obtained access to acute myeloid leukemia (AML) NGS data from TCGA. [14] Aligned NGS data from TCGA are available through the Cancer Genomics Hub (cgHub). The data set of interest consisted of approximately 12 terabytes (TBs) of whole genome sequencing (WGS) data and another 12 TB of whole exome sequencing data. Our analysis required the identification of somatic variants followed by a prediction of tumor heterogeneity using publicly available software tools. Unfortunately, many bioinformatics tools have specific software dependencies and natively run on only a subset of operating systems. [15] In addition, many applications are unable to run their computations in parallel, thus limiting analysis throughput. While increasing the number of servers or individual server resources can improve analysis speed, overall processing may still be less efficient due to these limitations.

As previously noted, the Docker platform allows for virtualized application deployments within a lightweight, Linux-based wrapper called a container. [9],[11],[15] This approach is similar to operating system virtualization but at the application level. Containerization enables developers to create virtual environments that have only the minimum necessary libraries, which users can quickly deploy on their own infrastructure in a secure, reproducible fashion. In addition, the isolation offered by this approach means that a more robust, parallelized workflow can be created for some applications that do not natively support multi-threading or parallel processing. While this type of workflow implementation is not beneficial for all use cases, scenarios where compute capacity on a single node exceeds what a single application can utilize are likely to benefit from such an approach.

To efficiently predict tumor heterogeneity from TCGA data, we implemented two key technologies: a Python workflow using the Luigi library (Spotify, Stockholm, Sweden) [16] and Docker containers for each key application in our analysis pipeline. While neither of these technologies is unique to genomic analysis or bioinformatics, Luigi is a general workflow orchestration library, and Docker allows for application visualization, as previously noted. For this use case, we were restricted to a single computational node with eight cores and 128 gigabyte (GB) of memory for analysis. As shown in [Figure 1], aligned WGS data were obtained for paired germline and tumor specimens from cgHub (now the genomic data commons) using the cgDownload utility. [17] We identified somatic variants with the SomaticSniper application [18] and generated clonal predictions with the SciClone library. [19] Sequential data acquisition and analysis took approximately 4 h to complete per paired sequence but had significant variability between specimens, since file size and the number of genetic mutations varied significantly.
Figure 1: Serial workflow and architecture to download Cancer Genomics Hub data. To obtain next generation sequencing data from Cancer Genomics Hub, the cgDownload utility was used to transfer aligned whole genome and whole exome sequencing data. The SomaticSniper utility was then used to identify somatic variants and tumor clonality was predicted with SciClone. These utilities were all manually configured on a server running CentOS 6.7

Click here to view

   Approach Top

Because of the large number of specimens and the time needed for sequential analysis, our first approach to improving pipeline efficiency was the implementation of a Python workflow using the Luigi library. This library is commonly used for workflow automation and has gained significant traction within bioinformatics through the development of the Sci: Luigi library. [20] Implementation of our pipeline with this workflow library allowed us to include automated fault tolerance, primarily for issues that resulted in sequence download failures due to brief losses in network connectivity. In addition, the workflow could run continuously and unsupervised, which markedly reduced the amount of hands-on time needed for analysis.

Workflow automation led to a significant improvement in efficiency; however, the inability to parallelize the software packages limited analysis throughput. While the cgDownload utility does support multi-threading, local bandwidth and disk size limitations made bulk downloading of the entire TCGA data set difficult. In addition, a bulk download followed by a full analysis of the data set would mean that network capacity would be saturated while the computational resources remained idle, followed by the opposite scenario. To maintain high, simultaneous utilization of all local hardware resources, including bandwidth, memory, and processor capacity, we deployed the cgDownload utility, SomaticSniper, and SciClone within isolated Docker containers and executed each container with our Luigi workflow [Figure 2]. This approach allowed us to horizontally and vertically scale each application to take full advantage of our local hardware. In addition, each application could be deployed on a single node running CentOS7 (Red Hat, Raleigh, NC, USA) within a container running its natively-supported operating system: CentOS6 for cgDownload and Ubuntu (Canonical, London, UK) for SomaticSniper and SciClone.
Figure 2: Comparison of standard application architecture and containerized architecture for clonal analysis. (a) When deployed in a virtual server, the analysis workflow was installed on CentOS 6.7 and had to be run serially due to limitations in software parallelization and local resources. Applications are launched manually in sequence to download NGS data, identify variants, and predict tumor clonality. (b) When configured in Docker containers and driven by a workflow manager, applications were automatically launched and able to scale based on available system resources. Each application was configured on its native operating system architecture within the container, as indicated in the figure

Click here to view

This approach to application deployment can offer significant performance benefits. However, any virtualization technology has the potential to offset these gains due to resource overhead in the virtualization layer. To assess the impact of Docker virtualization on two key metrics, disk throughput, and processing efficiency, we used two benchmarking tools to evaluate performance on the virtual server as well as in a Docker container. To benchmark disk input/output performance, we used the dd command line tool, a standard Linux utility that can be used to read and write files and to gather performance statistics. The dd utility was used to write a 1 GB file and showed similar performance in both a virtual machine and a Docker container within this same environment [Figure 3]a. Similarly, results from sysbench, an open-source benchmarking utility originally created by MySQL AB, found that the time needed to calculate 10,000 primes in either environment was equivalent [Figure 3]b. When combined with evidence from other studies, [21] these results demonstrate that Docker has a minimal overhead for these components.
Figure 3: Disk throughput and processor efficiency of Docker containers. (a) The time needed to write a one-gigabyte file with the dd utility was similar in both a virtual machine and within a Docker container on the same host. (b) The calculation of 10,000 primes with the sysbench utility showed similar performance in a virtual machine and a Docker container on the same host

Click here to view

Since we found similar benchmarking results for both the virtual machine and Docker containers, we next executed our workflow to analyze the AML WGS results from TCGA. Using this approach, we were able to stagger data download and processing to take advantage of all system resources [Figure 4]. One limitation to this approach is that none of the tools described here provide built-in resource monitoring. This pipeline was well-suited to parallel analysis since each application had specific, isolated resource needs such as network, storage, or compute capacity, which could be monitored with custom code within the Python workflow. Use of this automated staggered workflow with Docker containers allowed use to analyze fifty specimens from the TCGA data set within approximately 3 days. It is difficult to provide statistical performance metrics since many factors such as data volume, and network bandwidth can significantly alter the overall pipeline performance. However, the general approach of staggered, parallel computation should provide increased processing efficiency for workloads such as this.
Figure 4: Illustration of parallelization improvements with a workflow-driven container architecture. (a) When performed serially, the download (white bars) and analysis (shaded bars) of a single pair of tumor and germline sequence on local hardware took approximately 4 h (bars drawn to scale). (b) When parallelized with a workflow manager and Docker containers, multiple specimens could be processed simultaneously to take advantage of all system resources, including network, memory, and processor capacity

Click here to view

   Conclusion Top

The complex nature of genomic data and the tools used to analyze these data sets makes efficient processing difficult with standard environments. As noted above, the use of emerging technologies such as Docker in combination with automated workflows may significantly improve the efficiency of data processing in bioinformatics. With the growing number of open data projects, use of these techniques will be necessary to take advantage of available computational resources.

While performance and pipeline efficiency were key components of this implementation, Docker containers also allow for application isolation from the host operating system. Since many bioinformatics tools have complex sets of dependencies and are difficult to build from source, the ability to deploy containers with different operating systems and dependency versions to the same host decreases the amount of effort needed to being analysis. For example, the cgDownload utility is distributed as a compiled binary for use on CentOS 6.7, but can only be deployed on CentOS 7 when built from source, which requires a significant amount of manual configuration. As shown in [Figure 2], the use of containers allowed the deployment of each utility on its natively supported operating system, which improves stability and decreases the potential for dependency conflicts among software applications.

Several other tools exist for the orchestration of containerized applications, such as Kubernetes and Docker Swarm. For complex platforms, these tools can be used to deploy containers across hardware clusters and to integrate networking and storage resources between containers. However, these applications work strictly at the container level and do not inherently provide application-level workflows as presented here. Additional implementation experience about the use of these tools within high-performance clusters may provide valuable insights about the scalability of these tools within bioinformatics workflows.

The above findings demonstrate the promise of emerging technologies to improve the efficiency of genomic analysis. Because of the subsequent increase in analysis throughput, use of these tools means that big data analyses can be done even with limited local computational capacity. Finally, use of container technology can improve pipeline and experimental reproducibility since preconfigured applications can be readily deployed to nearly any host system. While many factors can impact reproducibility, the use of containers limits variability due to differences in software environment or application configuration when appropriately deployed. The continued use of emerging technology and novel approaches to software architecture has the potential to increase the efficiency of computational analysis in bioinformatics.

Financial Support and Sponsorship

ACLPS Paul E. Strandjord Young Investigator Grant.

Conflicts of Interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

   References Top

Krumholz HM, Waldstreicher J. The Yale Open Data Access (YODA) Project - A mechanism for data sharing. N Engl J Med 2016;375:403-5.  Back to cited text no. 1
Collins FS, Barker AD. Mapping the cancer genome. Pinpointing the genes involved in cancer will help chart a new course across the complex landscape of human malignancies. Sci Am 2007;296:50-7.  Back to cited text no. 2
Fan J, Han F, Liu H. Challenges of big data analysis. Natl Sci Rev 2014;1:293-314.  Back to cited text no. 3
Nekrutenko A, Taylor J. Next-generation sequencing data interpretation: Enhancing reproducibility and accessibility. Nat Rev Genet 2012;13:667-72.  Back to cited text no. 4
Blankenberg D, Von Kuster G, Coraor N, Ananda G, Lazarus R, Mangan M, et al. Galaxy: A web-based genome analysis tool for experimentalists. Curr Protoc Mol Biol 2010;Chapter 19:Unit 19.10.1-21.  Back to cited text no. 5
Hatakeyama M, Opitz L, Russo G, Qi W, Schlapbach R, Rehrauer H, et al. SUSHI: An exquisite recipe for fully documented, reproducible and reusable NGS data analysis. BMC Bioinformatics 2016;17:228.  Back to cited text no. 6
Dudley JT, Butte AJ. In silico research in the era of cloud computing. Nat Biotechnol 2010;28:1181-5.  Back to cited text no. 7
Howe B. Virtual appliances, cloud computing, and reproducible research. Comput Sci Eng 2012;14:36-41.  Back to cited text no. 8
Docker. 2016. Available from: [Last accessed on 2016 Nov 21].  Back to cited text no. 9
Docker AC. Software engineering. IEEE Softw 2015;32:102-3.   Back to cited text no. 10
Boettiger C. An introduction to Docker for reproducible research. SIGOPS Oper Syst Rev 2015;49:71-9.  Back to cited text no. 11
Hung LH, Kristiyanto D, Lee SB, Yeung KY. GUIdock: Using Docker containers with a common graphics user interface to address the reproducibility of research. PLoS One 2016;11:e0152686.  Back to cited text no. 12
Moreews F, Sallou O, Ménager H, Le Bras Y, Monjeaud C, Blanchet C, et al. BioShaDock: A community driven bioinformatics shared Docker-based tools registry. F1000Res 2015;4:1443.  Back to cited text no. 13
Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network. Genomic and epigenomic landscapes of adult de novo acute myeloid leukemia. N Engl J Med 2013;368:2059-74.  Back to cited text no. 14
Piccolo SR, Frampton MB. Tools and techniques for computational reproducibility. Gigascience 2016;5:30.  Back to cited text no. 15
Spotify. Luigi; 2016. Available from: [Last accessed on 2016 Nov 21].  Back to cited text no. 16
National Cancer Institute. Genomic Data Commons; 2016. Available from: [Last accessed on 2016 Nov 21].  Back to cited text no. 17
Larson DE, Harris CC, Chen K, Koboldt DC, Abbott TE, Dooling DJ, et al. SomaticSniper: Identification of somatic point mutations in whole genome sequencing data. Bioinformatics 2012;28:311-7.  Back to cited text no. 18
Miller CA, White BS, Dees ND, Griffith M, Welch JS, Griffith OL, et al. SciClone: Inferring clonal architecture and tracking the spatial and temporal patterns of tumor evolution. PLoS Comput Biol 2014;10:e1003665.  Back to cited text no. 19
Lampa S. Sci: Luigi; 2016. Available from: [Last accessed on 2016 Nov 21].  Back to cited text no. 20
Preeth EN, Mulerickal FJ, Paul B, Sastri Y. Evaluation of Docker Containers Based on Hardware Utilization. In: 2015 International Conference on Control Communication and Computing India (ICCC); 2015. p. 697-700.  Back to cited text no. 21


  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4]

This article has been cited by
1 Containers in Bioinformatics: Applications, Practical Considerations, and Best Practices in Molecular Pathology
Sabah Kadri, Andrea Sboner, Alexandros Sigaras, Somak Roy
The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics. 2022;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
2 Federated analysis of BRCA1 and BRCA2 variation in a Japanese cohort
James Casaletto, Michael Parsons, Charles Markello, Yusuke Iwasaki, Yukihide Momozawa, Amanda B. Spurdle, Melissa Cline
Cell Genomics. 2022; 2(3): 100109
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
3 Design considerations for workflow management systems use in production genomics research and the clinic
Azza E. Ahmed, Joshua M. Allen, Tajesvi Bhat, Prakruthi Burra, Christina E. Fliege, Steven N. Hart, Jacob R. Heldenbrand, Matthew E. Hudson, Dave Deandre Istanto, Michael T. Kalmbach, Gregory D. Kapraun, Katherine I. Kendig, Matthew Charles Kendzior, Eric W. Klee, Nate Mattson, Christian A. Ross, Sami M. Sharif, Ramshankar Venkatakrishnan, Faisal M. Fadlelmola, Liudmila S. Mainzer
Scientific Reports. 2021; 11(1)
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
4 An open-source python library for detection of known and novel Kell, Duffy and Kidd variants from exome sequencing
Celina Montemayor, Alexandra Simone, James Long, Oscar Montemayor, Bhavesh Delvadia, Robert Rivera, Katie L Lewis, Shahin Shahsavari, Divya Gandla, Katherine Dura, Uma S Krishnan, Nena C Wendzel, Nasha Elavia, Spencer Grissom, Panagiota Karagianni, Marina Bueno, Debrean Loy, Rizaldi Cacanindin, Steven McLaughlin, Maxim Tynuv, Patricia A R Brunker, John Roback, Sharon Adams, Harold Smith, Leslie Biesecker, Harvey G Klein
Vox Sanguinis. 2021; 116(4): 451
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
5 Approaches for containerized scientific workflows in cloud environments with applications in life science
Ola Spjuth, Marco Capuccini, Matteo Carone, Anders Larsson, Wesley Schaal, Jon Ander Novella, Oliver Stein, Morgan Ekmefjord, Paolo Di Tommaso, Evan Floden, Cedric Notredame, Pablo Moreno, Andreas Hellander, Payam Emami Khoonsari, Stephanie Herman, Kim Kultima, Samuel Lampa
F1000Research. 2021; 10: 513
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
6 Bridging the collaboration gap: Real-time identification of clinical specimens for biomedical research
ThomasJ S Durant, Guannan Gong, Nathan Price, WadeL Schulz
Journal of Pathology Informatics. 2020; 11(1): 14
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
7 META-pipe cloud setup and execution
Aleksandr Agafonov,Kimmo Mattila,Cuong Duong Tuan,Lars Tiede,Inge Alexander Raknes,Lars Ailo Bongo
F1000Research. 2018; 6: 2060
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
8 META-pipe cloud setup and execution
Aleksandr Agafonov,Kimmo Mattila,Cuong Duong Tuan,Lars Tiede,Inge Alexander Raknes,Lars Ailo Bongo
F1000Research. 2017; 6: 2060
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
9 A Review of Scalable Bioinformatics Pipelines
Bjørn Fjukstad,Lars Ailo Bongo
Data Science and Engineering. 2017;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
10 Robust Cross-Platform Workflows: How Technical and Scientific Communities Collaborate to Develop, Test and Share Best Practices for Data Analysis
Steffen Möller,Stuart W. Prescott,Lars Wirzenius,Petter Reinholdtsen,Brad Chapman,Pjotr Prins,Stian Soiland-Reyes,Fabian Klötzl,Andrea Bagnacani,Matúš Kalaš,Andreas Tille,Michael R. Crusoe
Data Science and Engineering. 2017; 2(3): 232
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
11 Customized workflow development and data modularization concepts for RNA-Sequencing and metatranscriptome experiments
Steffen C. Lott,Markus Wolfien,Konstantin Riege,Andrea Bagnacani,Olaf Wolkenhauer,Steve Hoffmann,Wolfgang R. Hess
Journal of Biotechnology. 2017;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
12 Reproducible Bioconductor workflows using browser-based interactive notebooks and containers
Reem Almugbel,Ling-Hong Hung,Jiaming Hu,Abeer Almutairy,Nicole Ortogero,Yashaswi Tamta,Ka Yee Yeung
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 2017;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]




   Browse articles
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

  In this article
   Technical Background
    Article Figures

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded455    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 12    

Recommend this journal