 Research
 Open Access
 Published:
Using earth mover’s distance for viral outbreak investigations
BMC Genomics volume 21, Article number: 582 (2020)
Abstract
Background
RNA viruses mutate at extremely high rates, forming an intrahost viral population of closely related variants, which allows them to evade the host’s immune system and makes them particularly dangerous. Viral outbreaks pose a significant threat for public health, and, in order to deal with it, it is critical to infer transmission clusters, i.e., decide whether two viral samples belong to the same outbreak. Nextgeneration sequencing (NGS) can significantly help in tackling outbreakrelated problems. While NGS data is first obtained as short reads, existing methods rely on assembled sequences. This requires reconstruction of the entire viral population, which is complicated, errorprone and timeconsuming.
Results
The experimental validation using sequencing data from HCV outbreaks shows that the proposed algorithm can successfully identify genetic relatedness between viral populations, infer transmission direction, transmission clusters and outbreak sources, as well as decide whether the source is present in the sequenced outbreak sample and identify it.
Conclusions
Introduced algorithm allows to cluster genetically related samples, infer transmission directions and predict sources of outbreaks. Validation on experimental data demonstrated that algorithm is able to reconstruct various transmission characteristics. Advantage of the method is the ability to bypass cumbersome read assembly, thus eliminating the chance to introduce new errors, and saving processing time by allowing to use raw NGS reads.
Background
RNA viruses mutate at extremely high rates, forming an intrahost viral population of closely related variants (or quasispecies). Their high variability [1] allows them to evade the host’s immune system and makes them particularly dangerous. Viral outbreaks pose a significant threat for public health, and, in order to deal with it, it is critical to infer transmission clusters, i.e., decide whether two viral samples belong to the same outbreak.
The progress of sequencing technologies made it possible to identify and sample intrahost viral populations at great depth [2,3,4,5,6,7]. Consequently, contribution of se quencing technologies to molecular surveillance of viral outbreaks becomes more and more substantial. Genome sequencing of viral populations reveals similarities between samples, allows to measure viral genetic distance, and to facilitate outbreak identification and isolation. Computational methods can be used to infer transmis sion characteristics from sequencing data. MiSeq [8] is a popuar NGS technology, that is used to sequence viral samples and detect rare viral mutations. Since MiSeq reads are short, their alignment and assembly for rapidly mutating RNA viruses is errorprone and complicated, which makes it appealing to develop an approach, that will allow to skip alignment and assembly steps.
In this paper, we apply an alignment and assemblyfree kmer strategy to viral sequencing data. This strategy was initially introduced for analyzing NGS data in metagenomic studies, where reads come from multiple related and unrelated genomes (see [9]), as well as for RNAseq quantification [10].
Indeed, it is relatively fast and easy to extract kmers from reads, so that the complexity of viral distance measurement changes from read alignment and assem bly to comparison of kmer sets or distributions. Following [9], we build a De Bruijn graph for each sample, and then calculate Earth Mover’s Distance (EMD) between two kmer distributions.
We applied the kmer strategy to the following epidemiological tasks (T1T5), where T1T2 are applied to 2 hosts, and T3T5 are applied to multiple hosts.
T1. Identification of relatedness:
Given: NGS reads from hosts A and B
Decide: Whether A and B are related (whether they belong to the same outbreak)
T2. Identification of transmission direction:
Given: NGS reads from hosts A and B
Decide: Whether host A infected B or B infected A
T3. Identification of transmission clusters:
Given: NGS reads from a set of hosts
Find: The transmission clusters corresponding to individual outbreaks
T4. Presence of outbreak source:
Given: NGS reads from a set of hosts
Decide: Whether outbreak source is present among sequenced hosts
T5. Identification of outbreak source:
Given: NGS reads from a set of hosts
Find: Outbreak source
Identifying whether 2 hosts belong to the same outbreak (T1) and transmission direction between them (T2) are tasks, that have to be solved in order to find trans mission chains. Another important task is to discover boundaries of an outbreak (T3). Once hosts, that belong to an outbreak are obtained, it is critical to design whether the source is among them (T4). Finally, identifying the main spreader of an outbreak (T5) is a crucial epidemiological task, by solving which outbreak spreading can be prevented.
We experimentally validated our approach on a dataset, that consists of a collec tion of HCV intrahost populations, sampled from 368 infected individuals [11].
Outbreak collection contains:

175 HCV samples from 34 epidemiologically curated outbreaks, reported to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2008–2013. Outbreaks contain from 2 to 33 samples. Epidemiological histories, including sources of infection, are known for 11 outbreaks.

Collection of 193 epidemiologically unrelated HCV samples.
Obtained results are comparable with existing approaches [11, 12], but proposed algorithm is much faster, since it doesn’t rely on read assembly.
Methods
Our algorithms are based on finding the distance between populations using Earth Movers’ Distance (EMD) between distributions of kmers in NGS data. The general pipeline of the algorithm (see Fig. 1) includes obtaining kmer distributions from NGS reads for corresponding hosts and computing EMD between them. As a result, we obtain mean of hosts A and B Mean(A, B) and EMD EMD(A, B) between them. We first describe how we find distances between kmers and then describe how we find distance between samples.
Finding distances between kmers in the De Bruijn graph
kmer refers to a substring of length k. In our work, we use De Bruijn graph to calculate distance between kmers. De Bruijn graph is the graph, that is constructed so that vertices represent every string over a finite alphabet of length l, and edges are added between vertices that have overlap of l − 1.
Once De Bruijn graph is constructed, distance between kmers can be calculated as a length of shortest path between corresponding vertices using breadthfirst search algorithm. In our algorithms, obtained graph is converted to undirected be fore shortest path computation.
Finding EMD between viral samples
Viral populations can be compared by comparing the corresponding kmer distri butions using EMD. First, kmer distributions are obtained for each sample, so that they contain all kmers and normalized frequencies.
EMD is a method, that allows to evaluate dissimilarity between two multi dimensional distributions in some feature space where a distance measure between single features (ground distance) is given [13]. Distributions can be represented as signatures  sets of clusters, so that each cluster is represented by its mean and by the fraction of distribution that belongs to that cluster. Computation of EMD is based on solving the transportation problem, which can be formulated as following: for several suppliers, each with a given amount of goods, several consumers, each with limited capacity, and a cost of transporting a single unit of goods between each supplierconsumer pair, find a leastexpensive flow of goods from the suppliers to the consumers that satisfies the consumers’ demand. EMD is calculated as the following: \( EMD\left(P,Q\right)={\varSigma}_{i=1}^m{\varSigma}_{j=1}^n{f}_{ij}{d}_{ij} \) where f_{ij} is the minimumcost flow between supplier i and consumer j, and d_{ij} is the distance between i and j.
It should also be noted that EMD is usually normalized by the total flow, but we perform but we perform normalization of frequencies in kmer distributions before EMD computation, which results in total flow always being equal to 1.
Example of EMD computation
Constructing of the De Bruijn graph between two sequences CGATTCTAAGT and CGATTGTAAGT is shown on Fig. 2. Once original graph is obtained, directions are removed and pairwise distances are computed for all kmers. Figure 3 describes an example of kEMD distance computation. After kmer distributions are generated for input sequences, EMD is computed as the work, where f_{ij} is the flow between histogram(kmer distribution) elements i and j and d_{ij} is the corresponding distance between kmers, which is obtained from De Bruijn graph (Fig. 2). This way, EMD = 0.88.
Mean kmer distribution
Representing samples as kmer distributions allows to estimate the center from a group of samples by introducing a mean host. We use the maximum mean kmer distribution, which is obtained by finding the maximum observed frequency for each.
Identification of relatedness
We train out algorithm on all given outbreaks and obtain minimal EMD between 2 unrelated hosts, which we use as a threshold t. To identify whether 2 hosts A and B are related, we compute EMD between them EMD(A, B) and predict that they are related if EMD(A, B) < t, and unrelated otherwise.
.Identification of transmission direction between hosts
To infer transmission direction between a pair of samples X and Y, we first compute a mean host Mean(A, B).
Once Mean(A, B) is obtained, we calculate EMD between mean host and hosts A and B EMD(Mean(A, B), A) and EMD(Mean(A, B), B). Host, that is closer to the maximum mean is assumed to be the transmission source, so that if EMD(Mean(A, B), A) < EMD(Mean(A, B), B), we predict that the transmis sion happened from A to B (Fig. 4).
Identification of transmission clusters
To test hierarchical clustering, singlelinkage algorithm was used. This method eval uates the similarity of two clusters based on their most similar members [14] and groups clusters in bottomup order until certain termination condition is satisfied. In our algorithm, we use a distance criteria, so clusters are merged until distance between them exceeds a predefined distance threshold, which represents EMD be tween two closest unrelated samples in the dataset. This way, we obtain a partition, where some of the related hosts remain in different clusters. At this point, we pro ceed to the second stage of the algorithm, that allows to improve the clustering quality by merging the clusters, that contain related hosts by performing the fol lowing steps:

1.
For each cluster, obtained from hierarchical clustering, compute center as the mean of all hosts within the cluster;

2.
For each center, obtained at the previous step:

Find distances to the furthest incluster host and closest host, that be longs to the different cluster;

If for cluster A there exists an ‘overlap’ (there is a host from cluster B, that is closer to the center than the furthest host, belonging to the same cluster (A)), merge A and B
Example of the algorithm is demonstrated in Fig. 5. a) shows output of threshold based hierarchical clustering, where circles represent hosts, that are connected with an edge if distance between them doesn’t exceed a threshold. There are 2 clusters that belong to the same outbreak. b) shows how clusters are merged based on circle overlap. For each cluster, mean host of all hosts within the cluster is calculated (shown in the center). Circles with dashed borders have centers in respective mean hosts; their radiuses are calculated as distances between mean hosts and furthest incluster hosts. In the example, Mean 1 is closer to host A that to the furthest host from the same (left) cluster. This way, according to our algorithm, intersecting clusters collapse.
Deciding whether source is present in a set of hosts
To decide whether source is present in a set of sequenced hosts S, the following algorithm is applied:

1.
Calculate mean Mean(S) for all hosts within an outbreak;

2.
For every host H, calculate EMD between H and mean Mean EMD(Mean(S), H);

3.
If there exists a host, for which EMD(Mean(S), H) < t, source is present. To obtain threshold t, we train the algorithm on all outbreaks with known sources. For every such outbreak, we first calculate the mean host Mean(S) and distances between mean and every host H in the outbreak EMD(Mean(S), H), find the smallest distance and normalize it by the median distance from mean to host in an outbreak. After this, we repeat the procedure for the same outbreak, but discard the source. We define t as the minimal EMD(Mean(S), H) for an outbreak without source, which maximizes accuracy, so that outbreaks, where source is present, have EMD(Mean(S), H) < t.
Source identification
To identify sources, we find a maximum mean host for an outbreak Mean and cal culate EMD between every host and Mean. Host with minimum EMD(H, Mean) is assumed to be the source.
Runtime complexity
The algorithm uses Pele and Werman’s [15, 16] algorithm for fast EMD computation, which has a runtime complexity of O(N ^{2}UlogN), where N is the number of nodes (kmers), and U is an upper bound on the largest supply (flow) of any node (since frequencies are normalized, this is equal to 1). This way, k – mer EMD has a worst time complexity of O(N ^{2}logN).
Results
We validated our new algorithm on a publicly available dataset obtained from an epidemiological study of HCV outbreaks [11] Fig. 6.
Data sets
The data consists of 368 sequenced hosts where 175 of them belong to 34 annotated outbreaks. Among these annotated outbreaks, 11 have a known main spreader (Table 1). All outbreaks contain from 2 to 33 hosts. Every host is represented as an HCV intrahost population, obtained with endpoint limitingdilution (EPLD). All viral sequences represent a fragment of E1/E2 genomic region of length 264 bp. Data samples annotation consists of host and outbreak id along with abundance for every sequence. This way, we were able to interpret obtained experimental results.
We simulated MiSeq reads from known haplotypes by SimSeq [17] and created mixtures using abundances from original data.
Validation
Identification of relatedness
Viral populations from two samples are genetically related if they belong to the same outbreak and unrelated, otherwise. The genetic relatedness is validated on the union of both collections containing all outbreaks and unrelated samples. There are 67,528 host pairs (obtained from all 368 hosts). Among these pairs, 1007 represent related cases (so that both hosts in pair belong to the same annotated outbreak). We used EMD as predictor for relatedness. We measured the sensitivity of our method as following. First we determining the EMD value for all unrelated pairs, the mini mum value we have chosen as a threshold which prohibits falsepositive relatedness detection, the pairs which have EMD below the threshold are considered as related. Precision of our algorithm is 100%. We calculated the recall as a proportion of cor rectly predicted related pairs among all known related pairs. Results are described in Table 2. Relatedness ROC is shown on Fig. 7.
Identification of transmission direction between hosts
Performance of algorithm when identifying transmission direction was calculated as a ratio of pairs of hosts with correctly predicted directions to all host pairs, where direction is known. Results are shown in Table 2.
Identification of transmission clusters
Precision for our algorithm is equal to 100%, since we don’t merge hosts from different outbreaks. Similarities between true and estimated partitions were evalu ated using an editing metric [18]. Given metric is defined as the minimum number of elementary operations, required to transform one partition into another, such as joining or partition of clusters [18]. Clustering recall was calculated similarly to [12], so that editing distance E was normalized by dividing it by the number of elementary operations N, required to transform trivial partition into singleton sets into true partition, which is equal to n − k, where n is the number of samples and k is the number of true clusters [12]:
Deciding whether outbreak source is present
Source presence recall was calculated as the proportion of outbreaks with present source, that were correctly identified as such; precision  as the proportion of cor rectly identified outbreaks, where source is not present. Finally, specificity was cal culated as the total number of outbreaks with present source, divided by the sum of total number of outbreaks with present source and the number of outbreaks, that were incorrectly identified to have a source present. For our algorithm, precision = 90%, specificity = 80%, and recall = 85%. ROC curve for source presence detection is shown on Fig. 8.
Identification of outbreak sources
Source identification accuracy is calculated as the percentage of outbreaks with correctly predicted sources for outbreaks with known sources. ROC curve for source presence detection is shown on Fig. 9.
Conclusions
Extracting haplotypes by EPLD is laborious and costly procedure and that pro hibits previously developed methods [12] from wide spread. On the other hand, viral samples can be easily sequenced by NGS, and that makes our novel method attractive. Furthermore, we can see that results in this article are comparable with those which were obtained using EPLD technology [12]. Moreover, our method al lowed to decide whether the spreader get sequenced.
Application of molecular viral analysis to investigation of outbreaks and infer ence of transmission networks is a promising technique, that is available nowadays. However, it generates novel computational challenges. Given work introduced an algorithm for investigation of viral transmissions, that is based on analysis of the intrahost viral populations through kmer decomposition. Proposed approach al lows to cluster genetically related samples, infer transmission directions and predict sources of outbreaks. Validation on experimental data demonstrated that algorithm is able to reconstruct various transmission characteristics. It should be noted that even though there is still room for improvement when it comes to algorithm perfor mance, advantage of the method is the ability to bypass cumbersome read assembly, thus eliminating the chance to introduce new errors, and saving processing time by allowing to use raw NGS reads.
Availability of data and materials
k − mer EMD is freely available at https://github.com/amelnyk34/kemd.
Abbreviations
 NGS:

Nextgeneration sequencing
 EMD:

Earth mover’s distance
 HCV:

Hepatitis C virus
 RNA:

Ribonucleic acid
 EPLD:

Endpoint limitingdilution
 ROC:

Receiver operating characteristic
References
 1.
Drake JW, Holland JJ. Mutation rates among rna viruses. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 1999;96(24):13910–3.
 2.
Eriksson N, Pachter L, Mitsuya Y, Rhee SY, Wang C, Gharizadeh B, Ronaghi M, Shafer RW, Beerenwinkel N. Viral population estimation using pyrosequencing. PLoS Comput Biol. 2008;4(5):1000074.
 3.
Archer J, Braverman MS, Taillon BE, Desany B, James I, Harrigan PR, Lewis M, Robertson DL. Detection of lowfrequency pretherapy chemokine (cxc motif) receptor 4using hiv1 with ultradeep pyrosequencing. AIDS (London, England). 2009;23(10):1209.
 4.
Hoffmann C, Minkah N, Leipzig J, Wang G, Arens MQ, Tebas P, Bushman FD. Dna bar coding and pyrosequencing to identify rare hiv drug resistance mutations. Nucleic Acids Res. 2007;35(13):91.
 5.
Wang W, Zhang X, Xu Y, Weinstock GM, Di Bisceglie AM, Fan X. Highresolution quantification of hepatitis c virus genomewide mutation load and its correlation with the outcome of peginterferonalpha2a and ribavirin combination therapy. PLoS One. 2014;9(6):100131.
 6.
Skums P, Campo DS, Dimitrova Z, Vaughan G, Lau DT, Khudyakov Y. Numerical detection, measuring and analysis of differential interferon resistance for individual hcv intrahost variants and its influence on the therapy response. In silico biology. 2011;11(5):263–9.
 7.
Campo DS, Skums P, Dimitrova Z, Vaughan G, Forbi JC, Teo CG, Khudyakov Y, Lau DT. Drug resistance of a viral population and its individual intrahost variants during the first 48 hours of therapy. Clin Pharmacol Therapeutics. 2014;95(6):627–35.
 8.
RK KW, Ravi MK. Miseq: A next generation sequencing platform for genomic analysis; 2018. p. 223–32.
 9.
Mangul S, Koslicki D. Referencefree comparison of microbial communities via de bruijn graphs. In: proceedings of the 7th ACM international conference on bioinformatics, computational biology, and health informatics; 2016. p. 68–77. ACM.
 10.
Bray NL, Pimentel H, Melsted P, Pachter L. Nearoptimal probabilistic rnaseq quantification. Nat Biotechnol. 2016;34(5):525.
 11.
Campo DS, Xia GL, Dimitrova Z, Lin Y, Forbi JC, GanovaRaeva L, Punkova L, Ramachandran S, Thai H, Skums P, et al. Accurate genetic detection of hepatitis c virus transmissions in outbreak settings. J Infect Dis. 2016;213(6):957–65.
 12.
Glebova O, Knyazev S, Melnyk A, Artyomenko A, Khudyakov Y, Zelikovsky A, Skums P. Inference of genetic relatedness between viral quasispecies from sequencing data. BMC Genomics. 2017;18:918. https://doi.org/10.1186/s1286401742745.
 13.
Rubner, Y., Tomasi, C., Guibas, L.J.: A metric for distributions with applications to image databases. 1998 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (1998).
 14.
Manning, C.D., Raghavan, P., Schütze, H.: Introduction to Information Retrieval, pp. 382–385.
 15.
Pele O, Werman M. Fast and robust earth mover’s distances. In: 2009 IEEE 12th international conference on computer vision; 2009. p. 460–7. IEEE.
 16.
Pele, O., Werman, M.: A linear time histogram metric for improved sift matching. In: Computer Vision–ECCV 2008, pp. 495–508. Springer, (2008)..
 17.
Benidt S, Nettleton D. Simseq: A nonparametric approach to simulation of rnasequence datasets. Bioinformatics. 2015;31:9.
 18.
Deza MM, Deza E. Encyclopedia of distances: Springer; 2009.
Acknowledgements
Authors would like to thank Georgia State University MBD fellowship for support.
About this supplement
This article has been published as part of BMC Genomics Volume 21 Supplement 5, 2020: Selected articles from the 15th International Symposium on Bioinformatics Research and Applications (ISBRA19): genomics. The full contents of the supplement are available online at https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/supplements/volume21supplement5
Funding
Publication costs are funded by Georgia State University Molecular Basis of Disease fellowship, NSF grants DBI1564899 and CCF1619110, and NIH grants 1R01EB025022–01 and 1R01EB025022–01.
Author information
Affiliations
Contributions
AM designed, implemented and tested the algorithms; SK implemented and tested the algorithms; AZ, PS, FV and LB designed and implemented the algorithms, analyzed the results and supervised the research. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. 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 in a credit line to the data.
About this article
Cite this article
Melnyk, A., Knyazev, S., Vannberg, F. et al. Using earth mover’s distance for viral outbreak investigations. BMC Genomics 21, 582 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864020069824
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Keywords
 Genetic relatedness
 Transmission networks
 Outbreaks investigations
 Kmers
 De Bruijn graph