Unconfigured Ad

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • horribulas
    Junior Member
    • Sep 2015
    • 1

    #1

    Making a in silico mock community

    Hello All!

    I am looking to some microbiome work of fecal samples (16S V4 MiSeq). We are interested in detection a number of specific groups of bacteria in the samples. Specifically E. Coli and different Klebsiella species.

    I would like to know in silico whether we will be able to differentiate between species after we run the sequencing.

    What is the best method for testing whether our V4 sequencing will be able to differentiate to species level? Should I just be doing a bunch of blasting or would making a mock in silico community work best?

    Thanks for any help

    Mark
  • Brian Bushnell
    Super Moderator
    • Jan 2014
    • 2709

    #2
    If you are looking for specific microbial species (or really doing anything with NGS reads), BLAST is not really the best tool. You can calculate abundance by mapping or kmer-matching your sequences to just the set of references of interest.

    And certainly, you should first validate that your approach works on synthetic data before proceeding. That will allow you to quantify true positive, false positive, and false negative rates, which may lead you to adjust your methodology prior to doing any real work.

    For kmer-matching, I recommend Seal (part of the BBMap package), which is fast and easy to use for quantifying sequence expressions levels. For example:

    seal.sh in=reads.fq ref=ecoli.fa,klebsiella1.fa,klebsiella2.fa stats=stats.txt refstats=refstats.txt

    If you generate synthetic reads with errors, and annotate the reads with the name of the organism they came from, you can then objectively calculate the accuracy. Alternatively, if you just want to measure levels of various bacteria, you can generate synthetic reads and mix them in a specific ratio, then evaluate your approach by calculating how closely the output of expression levels matches the ratio of reads you mixed together. That's easier as it does not require parsing the read names.
    Last edited by Brian Bushnell; 09-30-2015, 06:22 PM.

    Comment

    Latest Articles

    Collapse

    • SEQadmin2
      Multiomic Liquid Biopsy: What DNA/RNA Panels Reveal That DNA Alone Can’t
      by SEQadmin2



      Tumors contain complex mixtures of cell populations that evolve in response to treatment and host-specific factors. Tissue biopsies provide only static snapshots of a tumor’s state. But what if we could follow that evolution over time using a minimally invasive technique?

      Liquid biopsies can detect tumor-derived material circulating in the bloodstream, providing a way to study treatment response, detect emerging resistance, and discover new biomarkers. Circulating
      ...
      10-14-2026, 09:55 AM
    • SEQadmin2
      New Genomics Technologies Take Aim at Long-Standing Limits
      by SEQadmin2


      Researchers using sequencing and genomics tools often have to make trade-offs. They can choose between speed or scale, short reads or long-range information, or targeted panels or a view of the whole transcriptome. New technologies that have been released this year are built to address those tough choices.

      We asked six companies the same four questions to learn about their latest products. The new technologies bring a lot to the table, including rethinking sequencing
      ...
      09-28-2026, 10:25 AM

    ad_right_rmr

    Collapse

    News

    Collapse

    Topics Statistics Last Post
    Started by SEQadmin2, 10-22-2026, 11:13 AM
    0 responses
    23 views
    0 reactions
    Last Post SEQadmin2  
    Started by SEQadmin2, 10-22-2026, 10:48 AM
    0 responses
    20 views
    0 reactions
    Last Post SEQadmin2  
    Started by SEQadmin2, 10-15-2026, 10:52 AM
    0 responses
    36 views
    0 reactions
    Last Post SEQadmin2  
    Started by SEQadmin2, 10-14-2026, 05:39 AM
    0 responses
    42 views
    0 reactions
    Last Post SEQadmin2  
    Working...