-
-
I have tried zorro on a genome of 450 MBp and I advise you not to try this. It is far too slow and basically unusable on a genome of this size.
I work on a project together with the developers of GAM and although nothing is public yet (and I am not sure when it will be) I have been testing an updated version designed to handle NGS assemblies and the results are excellent and the speed is also great. I will talk to the developer to ask when a public release could be possible.
Tweet
Zorro maximum size
-
Love this - good data definitely starts from good input, and poor input can only give relatively poor data. I particularly like the mention of Nanodrop/absorbance based methods for quantification. It's such a toss up if you'll get an accurate reading or what amounts to a randomly generated number, and a lot of library/sequencing related issues can be traced back to poor quant.07-01-2026, 11:43 AM
-
I’m not a sequencing expert. I’m a purification scientist who uses NGS to evaluate workflows my group develops. With this perspective, we think about the sample first and the NGS workflow second. The sequencer is an exceptionally honest reporter, but it can only report on what you give it, so whether you get clean, interpretable data from an NGS workflow is largely determined before you begin.
Here are nine questions we think about, in roughly the order they matter, before...
Comment