I've had pretty good results using SPAdes. Comparing my velvet runs against SPAdes from common files is pretty night and day.
An additional long-insert library might be helpful, especially if you've got an organism known to have lots of repetitive genome.
Seqanswers Leaderboard Ad
Collapse
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
-
Do I have to choose the same Kmer size for error correction and assembly?
Leave a comment:
-
Thanks a lot for all your replies above. I'm currently trying velvetoptimizer and SGA on the data.
Besides, I have another question:
Do I have to choose the same Kmer size for error correction and assembly? I was using SOAPec which allows up to 27 as k-mer size, but I wanted to use k=75 in assembly. Would this difference matter?
Thanks.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by metheuse View PostI didn't try with random subsamples? Would that help?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by mastal View Postvelvet calculates coverage as kmer coverage, the formula is in the velvet manual, so that would account for some of the difference between what you calculated and what velvet reports.
I find that the coverage velvet reports seems to be calculated on the number of reads it uses in the assembly, rather than the total number of reads.
The last line in the Log file after running velvetg gives the number of reads used in the assembly.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by gringer View PostHave you tried Ray? This looks like the sort of thing it was designed for.
I find the coverage strange also. Your effective coverage should be much higher with a paired-end sequencing run. Perhaps there are so many duplicated errors that it is confusing the assembly process, and it's calculating an average read separation of 50bp rather than 300bp. Have you tried it out with a random subsample of your reads (say 20-40M)?
I didn't try with random subsamples? Would that help?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by flxlex View PostA long insert library is definitely going to help your assembly. As for the library you have, picking one kmer size and fixing the library insert size may be suboptimal. You could try running preqc from SGA, see https://github.com/jts/sga/wiki/preqc, this can tll you a lot about your data. You may have gotten a library with a different insert size than you thought, for example. Also, try velvetOptimizer, part of velvet, to hget optimal settings for this program. I don't know enough about to other programs to be able to help you.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by metheuse View Post
4. The reported coverage is about 50X, with genome size estimated to be ~70M. But if I calculate the coverage from my reads, it would be 160M x 2 x 100/70M = ~400x. How can it be decreased to 50x? Well, fastqc did show that there is high duplication level in the raw reads (>70%). Could this be the reason?
I find that the coverage velvet reports seems to be calculated on the number of reads it uses in the assembly, rather than the total number of reads.
The last line in the Log file after running velvetg gives the number of reads used in the assembly.
Leave a comment:
-
Have you tried Ray? This looks like the sort of thing it was designed for.
I find the coverage strange also. Your effective coverage should be much higher with a paired-end sequencing run. Perhaps there are so many duplicated errors that it is confusing the assembly process, and it's calculating an average read separation of 50bp rather than 300bp. Have you tried it out with a random subsample of your reads (say 20-40M)?
Leave a comment:
-
A long insert library is definitely going to help your assembly. As for the library you have, picking one kmer size and fixing the library insert size may be suboptimal. You could try running preqc from SGA, see https://github.com/jts/sga/wiki/preqc, this can tll you a lot about your data. You may have gotten a library with a different insert size than you thought, for example. Also, try velvetOptimizer, part of velvet, to hget optimal settings for this program. I don't know enough about to other programs to be able to help you.
Leave a comment:
-
Assembly with a single library always fail?
I'm trying to assemble a ~70M genome from a single Illumina PE library (100nt read, 160M each end, insert size=300bp).
I've tried velvet, Abyss, and SOAPdenovo with K=75. The largest N50 is 2kb, with at least 77k contigs.
My questions are:
1. Generally does one have to use at least two libraries (one shorter insert and one longer insert) to get good assembly?
2. When I only have one short read library like this, how can I get the best assembly? (a rough question I know. What I want to know is any tips in the parameter tuning? or any preprocessing?)
3. It seems that SOAPdenovo always give me worst results with very small N50. But publication suggests this is a good assembler for large genome. I don't know if I did something wrong.
4. The reported coverage is about 50X, with genome size estimated to be ~70M. But if I calculate the coverage from my reads, it would be 160M x 2 x 100/70M = ~400x. How can it be decreased to 50x? Well, fastqc did show that there is high duplication level in the raw reads (>70%). Could this be the reason?
Here are my commands and results from each assembler:
1. velvet: (N50=2k, #contigs=77k, reported coverage=50X)
Code:velveth Sample_name 75 -shortPaired -fastq Sample_R1R2_rmdp_trimmed_SOAPec.fastq velvetg Sample_name -cov_cutoff auto -ins_length 300 -exp_cov auto
Code:abyss-pe n=10 name=Sample_k75 k=75 j=8 in='Sample_R1_rmdp_trimmed.fastq.cor.pair_1.fq Sample_R2_rmdp_trimmed.fastq.cor.pair_2.fq'
Code:SOAPdenovo-127mer all -s SOAPdenovo.config -K 75 -R -f -p 8 -F -V -o Sample_k75
1. Use fastuniq to remove duplicates
2. Use fastq-mcf to remove adapter seqs and trim low quality ends
3. Use SOAPec to error correct the reads:
Code:KmerFreq_HA -k 27 -f 1 -t 10 -L 101 -l fastqlistforSOAPec.lst -p Sample_k27 Corrector_HA -k 27 -l 2 -e 1 -w 1 -q 30 -r 45 -t 10 -j 1 -Q 33 -o 1 Sample_k27.freq.gz fastqlistforSOAPec.lst
Last edited by metheuse; 11-27-2013, 08:26 AM.
Latest Articles
Collapse
-
by seqadmin
While isolating and preparing single cells for sequencing was historically the bottleneck, recent technological advancements have shifted the challenge to data analysis. This highlights the rapidly evolving nature of single-cell sequencing. The inherent complexity of single-cell analysis has intensified with the surge in data volume and the incorporation of diverse and more complex datasets. This article explores the challenges in analysis, examines common pitfalls, offers...-
Channel: Articles
06-06-2024, 07:15 AM -
-
by seqadmin
Technological advances have led to drastic improvements in the field of precision medicine, enabling more personalized approaches to treatment. This article explores four leading groups that are overcoming many of the challenges of genomic profiling and precision medicine through their innovative platforms and technologies.
Somatic Genomics
“We have such a tremendous amount of genetic diversity that exists within each of us, and not just between us as individuals,”...-
Channel: Articles
05-24-2024, 01:16 PM -
ad_right_rmr
Collapse
News
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by seqadmin, 06-07-2024, 06:58 AM
|
0 responses
13 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seqadmin
06-07-2024, 06:58 AM
|
||
Started by seqadmin, 06-06-2024, 08:18 AM
|
0 responses
20 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seqadmin
06-06-2024, 08:18 AM
|
||
Started by seqadmin, 06-06-2024, 08:04 AM
|
0 responses
18 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seqadmin
06-06-2024, 08:04 AM
|
||
Started by seqadmin, 06-03-2024, 06:55 AM
|
0 responses
13 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seqadmin
06-03-2024, 06:55 AM
|
Leave a comment: