I'm trying to do a simple genomic track intersection in R, and running into major performance problems, probably related to my use of for loops.
In this situation, I have pre-defined windows at intervals of 100bp and I'm trying to calculate how much of each window is covered by the annotations in mylist. Graphically, it looks something like this:
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
windows: |-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|
mylist: |-| |-----------|
So I wrote some code to do just that, but it's fairly slow and has become a bottleneck in my code:
##window for each 100-bp segment
windows <- numeric(6)
##second track
mylist = vector("list")
mylist[[1]] = c(1,20)
mylist[[2]] = c(120,320)
##do the intersection
for(i in 1:length(mylist)){
st <- floor(mylist[[i]][1]/100)+1
sp <- floor(mylist[[i]][2]/100)+1
for(j in st:sp){
b <- max((j-1)*100, mylist[[i]][1])
e <- min(j*100, mylist[[i]][2])
windows[j] <- windows[j] + e - b + 1
}
}
print(windows)
[1] 20 81 101 21 0 0
Naturally, this is being used on data sets that are much larger than the example I provide here. Through some profiling, I can see that the bottleneck is in the for loops, but my clumsy attempt to vectorize it using *apply functions resulted in code that runs an order of magnitude more slowly.
I suppose I could write something in C, but I'd like to avoid that if possible. Can anyone suggest another approach that will speed this calculation up?
For that reason, it might make sense for you to avoid for-loops and to use functions such as lapply instead. This might speed up the R syntax and can save a lot of computational power! The next example explains how to use the lapply function in R.
A break statement is used inside a loop (repeat, for, while) to stop the iterations and flow the control outside of the loop.
The sapply() function behaves similarly to lapply() ; the only real difference is in the return value. sapply() will try to simplify the result of lapply() if possible.
The "Right" thing to do is to use the bioconductor IRanges
package, which uses an IntervalTree data structure to represent these ranges.
Having both of your objects in their own IRanges
objects, you would then use the findOverlaps
function to win.
Get it here:
http://www.bioconductor.org/packages/release/bioc/html/IRanges.html
By the by, the internals of the package are written in C, so its super fast.
EDIT
On second thought, it's not as much of a slam-dunk as I'm suggesting (a one liner), but you should definitely start using this library if you're working at all with genomic intervals (or other types) ... you'll likely need to do some set operations and stuff. Sorry, don't have time to provide the exact answer, though.
I just thought it's important to point this library out to you.
So I'm not entirely sure why the third and fourth windows aren't 100 and 20 because that would make more sense to me. Here's a one liner for that behavior:
Reduce('+', lapply(mylist, function(x) hist(x[1]:x[2], breaks = (0:6) * 100, plot = F)$counts))
Note that you need to specify the upper bound in breaks
, but it shouldn't be hard to make another pass to get it if you don't know it in advance.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With