Skip to main content

SnakeCube: containerized and automated pipeline for de novo genome assembly in HPC environments



The rapid progress in sequencing technology and related bioinformatics tools aims at disentangling diversity and conservation issues through genome analyses. The foremost challenges of the field involve coping with questions emerging from the swift development and application of new algorithms, as well as the establishment of standardized analysis approaches that promote transparency and transferability in research.


Here, we present SnakeCube, an automated and containerized whole de novo genome assembly pipeline that runs within isolated, secured environments and scales for use in High Performance Computing (HPC) domains. SnakeCube was optimized for its performance and tested for its effectiveness with various inputs, highlighting its safe and robust universal use in the field.


Modern sequencing technologies now allow scientists to generate de novo genome sequences for non-model organisms. However, routinely implementing such bioinformatics analyses remains challenging for both human and non-human resources. The time needed for manually controlling and pairing computationally heavy and memory straining tasks highlight the need for automation, standardization and chaining of the involved steps. Most existing workflows refer to the containerization of a single tool, may not involve containerization at all and may not be automated, with each step running individually in a manual chaining manner [1, 2]. Following the needs of the community, we aimed at building a complete genomic pipeline in a containerized form for use in HPC domains, which performs all analyses from the level of raw data processing and up to producing a fully polished assembly. We present SnakeCube, a de novo genome assembly pipeline which can operate with both long MinION and short Illumina reads. The workflow is based on our previous work on Lagocephalus sceleratus genome [3]. Furthermore, it is benchmarked and optimized using two additional publicly available datasets on distantly related organisms, with different genome sizes and raw data amounts, to monitor the response of the software.

Main text


The pipeline was constructed using the Snakemake workflow manager [4]. Then, it was isolated in a Singularity container for autonomy and integrity [5]. Snakemake splits the workflow into clearly defined individual steps (rules), which are either logical pieces of the procedure (i.e. assembly step, polishing step) or parts with different dependencies (i.e. different python versions). For each rule, the Conda package manager [6] creates unique environments that do not interfere with the host system and has pre-installed all required packages and libraries. In such environments, the user has full control while not granted elevated privileges on the host system. This feature makes containers suitable for multi-user domains. The environments, the definition files and the scripts of the pipeline, are all packed in container images that run as a single job in any linux-kernel based system, as long as they have Singularity pre-installed. The users have control over their analysis through a set of hyper-parameters declared in an external configuration file of a.yaml format, a Jason like, human-readable data-serialization language. The file contains parameters and their corresponding values to control variables of the applications included in the workflow. All results are saved into the user’s workspace, along with a directed acyclic graph (DAG) of the steps and a summary file with the status of the output files for validation.

The analysis itself is suited for building a de novo, fully polished, genome assembly for non-model species, with the use of both long (MinION, Oxford Nanopore Technology [ONT]) and short (Illumina) sequence reads (Fig. 1). The included steps are: 1) quality check and trimming of both short and long reads, 2) an initial genome assembly using the trimmed long reads, 3) polishing of the initial assembly using the long reads, and 4) final polishing of the genome with the trimmed short reads. The tools used in SnakeCube’s core, along with their description and versions, are presented in Additional file 1: Table 1. Some rules contain multiple tools and some tools are used in more than one rule. The analysis is also available in split sub-containers serving different needs and resources of the user.

Fig. 1
figure 1

The workflow of SnakeCube and its sub-containers. Each box represents the different images available. A and B represent the quality checking steps for short or/and long reads. B and C serve users with only long reads. D combines them all, forming SnakeCube

Table 1 SnakeCube’s performance


SnakeCube was first evaluated by reproducing the initial non-automated L. sceleratus analysis [3] used as the basis for the establishment of the pipeline. The produced output was generated as expected and SnakeCube scored similarly to the original work (Table 1). Then, the tool was benchmarked for its cpu load and memory usage while running serially, and it was optimized for speed and resource handling by parallel rule execution. The benefits of parallel execution and the general performance of SnakeCube were tested using two additional datasets of different organisms, to cover a range of genome sizes, raw data sizes and taxonomic groups: Caddisfly (insect) [7] and Crane (bird) [8].

Benchmarking and optimization

The benchmarking, optimization and testing of the pipeline took place in zorba, the HPC system of the Institute of Marine Biology, Biotechnology and Aquaculture (IMBBC, HCMR). Zorba is a high-performance computing cluster consisting of 328 cores and 2.3 TB memory at benchmarking time [21].

The cpu load recording was performed with the use of the Linux watch command, which was used to run all relevant commands at regular intervals, alongside loadavg, which gives the number of jobs in the run queue or waiting for input/output (IO), averaged in 15 m intervals. We monitored the whole pipeline in three repeated runs, and reported the average (Fig. 2a).

Fig. 2
figure 2

The benchmarking and optimization of SnakeCube based on the L. sceleratus dataset. a Reports of average memory and load monitoring records of three serial runs, with each point representing a rule of the container. b The rules were further independently monitored for their time-scaling efficiency when run multiple times with an increasing thread allowance. The memory properties are reported as in megabytes and only the highest value at any point is recorded. Time is measured in seconds. Rules are presented in the down-right side with their order of appearance

The memory straining of each individual task was monitored using the benchmark directive of Snakemake, and specifically the max_uss (Unique Set Size) field, which records the actual RAM used by the process without including the shared memory, and thus highlights the true cost of each step. Both cpu load and memory usage analysis did not show any sign of overloading. Even during the execution of demanding rules, the system reported idle cpus, and the memory usage was always lower than the given limit (128 GB RAM).

Subsequent parallelization was then introduced by dynamically determining the minimum number of threads required for each rule to reach its maximum computing-scaling efficiency. To identify the optimum cpu number per rule, we run the analysis multiple times incrementing the number of cpus and selected the point with no further speed up in the execution of each rule (Time vs Threads curve flattens). Based on this benchmarking, we specified the cpu threshold of each rule as a fraction of the overall host system cores, provided as a hyperparameter in the config file and via the threads directive of Snakemake (e.g. threads: int(config[“Available_Cores”]) * 0.5). Each rule was run using 1 to 10 pairs of cpus (10 runs) (Fig. 2b). Thus, the cpus that remained available during certain steps were used to run other independent rules in parallel. Non-demanding rules (e.g. summarizing software) were hardcoded to run in a single thread. On the contrary, workload intensive rules, like the main assembly construction, are always executed with full resources. Taking all benchmarks into account, the final optimization was formed using the group directive of Snakemake. Rules that did not directly depend on one another and could share proportions of the overall available resources, were grouped together for parallel execution. This resulted in three different execution groups. According to benchmarking results, the overall run time for each rule of the parallel pipeline was to some extent larger than the one observed in standalone runs, probably due to parallel jobs sharing the same resources (i.e. IO wait-time). However, the overall pipeline runtime was 10% to 20% reduced compared to the serial workflow execution depending on the dataset (Table 1). Overall, the parallelization seemed to be more effective in larger datasets.

Performance estimation

After benchmarking and optimizing SnakeCube, the final performance evaluation was based on the assembly completeness [9] and time efficiency for the three datasets (Table 1). In all datasets the parameters used were identical, except for the genome size (see Table 1) and the BUSCO taxonomy lineages used which were set to actinopterygii, aves and insecta for L. sceleratus, crane and caddisfly respectively.


At its core, SnakeCube was designed to meet the needs of non-expert users or anyone who wishes to automate the genome assembly step of a project, saving time, effort and resources for subsequent analyses. The benchmarks and optimization of the software achieved good standardization and highlighted its robustness. We demonstrate SnakeCube is capable of accomplishing equally optimal results as those obtained in the original non-automated analyses used for testing the pipeline, as well as to perform efficiently for a range of inputs. Thus, it is a reliable new genomics software that can promote transparency and reproducibility in genome assembly projects of various fields, in times when genomes are massively produced and used in state-of-the-art research around the world. The general performance of the software varies, as expected, for different types of datasets and organisms, but is notably high, making SnakeCube a competitive, universal candidate for use in future research.


SnakeCube is restricted to run only in linux-based domains. Moreover, its efficiency highly depends on the resources of the host system and it is proportional to them. When it comes to the applications involved, SnakeCube uses a combination of specific bioinformatics tools, and although it reflects very good results for various datasets and organisms, may not work for all cases and users, due to the limitations inherited from the underlying software. Thus, although we tried to make the workflow as universal as possible, we acknowledge that this may not always be feasible.

Availability of data and materials

SnakeCube is Python and bash based, and available via an open source license at GitHub: The final deliverables (containers) work in any Linux-based system with Singularity pre-installed. The Crane, Caddisfly and Lagocephalus sceleratus datasets analysed during this study are included in their corresponding published articles [and their supplementary information files]. All benchmarking code is available on the GitHub repository of SnakeCube.



High Performance Computing


Directed acyclic graph


Oxford Nanopore Technology


  1. da Veiga LF, Grüning B, Alves Aflitos S, Röst H, Uszkoreit J, Barsnes H, et al. BioContainers: an open-source and community-driven framework for software standardization. Bioinformatics. 2017;33(16):2580–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bhardwaj V, Heyne S, Sikora K, Rabbani L, Rauer M, Kilpert F, et al. snakePipes: facilitating flexible, scalable and integrative epigenomic analysis. Bioinformatics. 2019;35(22):4757–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Danis T, Papadogiannis V, Tsakogiannis A, Kristoffersen J, Golani D, Tsaparis D, et al. Genome analysis of Lagocephalus sceleratus: unraveling the genomic landscape of a successful invader. Front Genet. 2021.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Köster J, Rahmann S. Snakemake—a scalable bioinformatics workflow engine. Bioinformatics. 2012;28(19):2520–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kurtzer GM, Sochat V, Bauer MW. Singularity: scientific containers for mobility of compute. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(5): e0177459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Anaconda Software Distribution. 2020. Accessed 28 Feb 2022.

  7. Heckenhauer J, Frandsen PB, Gupta DK, Paule J, Prost S, Schell T, et al. Annotated draft genomes of two caddisfly species Plectrocnemia conspersa CURTIS and Hydropsyche tenuis NAVAS (Insecta: Trichoptera). Genome Biol Evol. 2019;11(12):3445–51.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Zhou C, Yu H, Geng Y, Liu W, Zheng S, Yang N, et al. A high-quality draft genome assembly of the black-necked crane (Grus nigricollis) based on nanopore sequencing. Genome Biol Evol. 2019;11(12):3332–40.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Simão FA, Waterhouse RM, Ioannidis P, Kriventseva EV, Zdobnov EM. BUSCO: assessing genome assembly and annotation completeness with single-copy orthologs. Bioinformatics. 2015;31(19):3210–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Andrews S. FastQC: a quality control tool for high throughput sequence data. 2010.

  11. Bolger AM, Lohse M, Usadel B. Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics. 2014;30(15):2114–20.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Ewels P. MultiQC: summarize analysis results for multiple tools and samples in a single report. Bioinformatics. 2016;32(19):3047–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. De Coster W, D’Hert S, Schultz DT, Cruts M, Van Broeckhoven C. NanoPack: visualizing and processing long-read sequencing data. Bioinformatics. 2018;34(15):2666–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Wick, R. rrwick/Porechop. GitHub. 2017. Accessed 28 Feb 2022.

  15. Kolmogorov M, Yuan J, Lin Y, Pevzner PA. Assembly of long, error-prone reads using repeat graphs. Nat Biotechnol. 2019;37(5):540–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Chikhi R, Medvedev P. Informed and automated k-mer size selection for genome assembly. Bioinformatics. 2013;30(1):31–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gurevich A. QUAST: quality assessment tool for genome assemblies. Bioinformatics. 2013;29(8):1072–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Vaser R, Sović I, Nagarajan N, Šikić M. Fast and accurate de novo genome assembly from long uncorrected reads. Genome Res. 2017;27(5):737–46.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Oxford Nanopore Technologies, GitHub repository. 2018. Accessed 28 Feb 2022.

  20. Walker BJ, Abeel T, Shea T, Priest M, Abouelliel A, Sakthikumar S, et al. Pilon: an integrated tool for comprehensive microbial variant detection and genome assembly improvement. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(11): e112963.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Zafeiropoulos H, Gioti A, Ninidakis S, Potirakis A, Paragkamian S, Angelova N, et al. 0s and 1s in marine molecular research: a regional HPC perspective. GigaScience. 2021;10(8):53.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references


This research was supported through computational resources provided by IMBBC (Institute of Marine Biology, Biotechnology and Aquaculture) of the HCMR (Hellenic Centre for Marine Research). Funding for establishing the IMBBC HPC has been received by the MARBIGEN (EU Regpot) project, LifeWatchGreece RI, and the CMBR (Centre for the study and sustainable exploitation of Marine Biological Resources) RI. Finally, we would like to thank Dr. Vasileios Papadogiannis for proofreading the manuscript.


This work was supported by the MeagreGen project, which was financially supported in the context of the call "Special Actions, AQUACULTURE" in the Operational Program "Competitiveness, Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 2014–2020".

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



NA developed, tested and optimized the software with the support of all authors. TD, CT, JL and TM designed the workflow during the Lagocephalus sceleratus project. TM and JL conceived the original idea. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tereza Manousaki.

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.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1:

Table S1. Tools and rules used by SnakeCube.

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 The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Angelova, N., Danis, T., Lagnel, J. et al. SnakeCube: containerized and automated pipeline for de novo genome assembly in HPC environments. BMC Res Notes 15, 98 (2022).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: