Nextflow vs. plain bash: different approaches to the parallelization of SNP calling from the whole genome sequence...

This study compared computational approaches to parallelization of an SNP calling workflow. The data comprised DNA from five Holstein-Friesian cows sequenced with the Illumina platform. The pipeline consisted of quality control, alignment to the reference genome, post-alignment, and SNP calling. Three approaches to parallelization were compared: (i) a plain Bash script in which a pipeline for each cow was executed as separate processes invoked at the same time, (ii) a Bash script wrapped in a single Nextflow process and (iii) a Nextflow script with each component of the pipeline defined as a separate process. The results demonstrated that on average, the multi-process Nextflow script performed 15-27% faster depending on the number of assigned threads, with the biggest execution time advantage over the plain Bash approach observed with 10 threads. In terms of RAM usage, the most substantial variation was observed for the multi-process Nextflow, for which it increased with the number of assigned threads, while RAM consumption of the other setups did not depend much on the number of threads assigned for computations. Due to intermediate and log files generated, disk usage was markedly higher for the multi-process Nextflow than for the plain Bash and for the single-process Nextflow.