Unconfigured Ad

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • seb567
    replied
    Originally posted by lg36 View Post
    Thanks Seb that's helpful. My peaks do overlap in the sense that the frequency of the paired end reads does not drop to zero between the peaks. This is an assembly of a single bacteria. The median and mean would be somewhere between the peaks and the mode would just select the tallest of the peaks. I have heard that a bimodal distribution is sometimes evidence of problems with the library preparation but can also be evidence of broken paired end reads because of repetitive sequence. Any ideas?
    I never saw bimodal distributions with the standard Illumina Nextera.

    I did saw bimodal distribution for very large inserts prepared by circularization. In these cases, the second lower peak is simply an expected contamination.

    But in your case, it is strange.

    Leave a comment:


  • lg36
    replied
    Thanks Seb that's helpful. My peaks do overlap in the sense that the frequency of the paired end reads does not drop to zero between the peaks. This is an assembly of a single bacteria. The median and mean would be somewhere between the peaks and the mode would just select the tallest of the peaks. I have heard that a bimodal distribution is sometimes evidence of problems with the library preparation but can also be evidence of broken paired end reads because of repetitive sequence. Any ideas?

    Leave a comment:


  • seb567
    replied
    Does your peaks overlap ?

    Usually assemblers will need an average and a standard deviation.
    The mode is usually near the average, but there is usually a tail on
    the right of the distribution.

    You can use Ray to estimate the paired end length distribution.

    Ray is a de novo assembler too.

    Then, you can process with these estimates.

    Command:
    Code:
    mpiexec -n 4 \
    Ray \
    -p file1R1.fastq file1R2.fastq \
    -p file2R1.fastq file2R2.fastq \
    -p file3R1.fastq file3R2.fastq \
    -o MyAssembly

    Then check MyAssembly/LibraryStatistics.txt and
    MyAssembly/Library0.txt MyAssembly/Library1.txt MyAssembly/Library2.txt


    This may be helpful.

    see http://denovoassembler.sf.net

    Is this a single-strain de novo assembly ?

    Or a mix of strains ?


    Originally posted by lg36 View Post
    Dear All,

    The consensus sequence I produce differs significantly based on the paired end distribution width I choose.

    My paired end distribution is bi-modal with a smaller wider peak at around 150 and a taller narrower peak around 350.

    Any ideas what paired end distribution width I should select for de novo assembly? I've asked the sequencing company for information regarding their insert size and my plan was to use this as a guide for selecting the PE width.

    I've heard that the narrower the width (focused around the mode) the more broken paired reads but the more differences may be detected between similar bacteria. While the wider the difference fewer broken reads but less precision. Is there any truth in this??

    Apologies for any misconceptions in advance.

    Best wishes lg36

    Leave a comment:


  • Paired End Read Distribution Width for Similar Bacteria

    Dear All,

    The consensus sequence I produce differs significantly based on the paired end distribution width I choose.

    My paired end distribution is bi-modal with a smaller wider peak at around 150 and a taller narrower peak around 350.

    Any ideas what paired end distribution width I should select for de novo assembly? I've asked the sequencing company for information regarding their insert size and my plan was to use this as a guide for selecting the PE width.

    I've heard that the narrower the width (focused around the mode) the more broken paired reads but the more differences may be detected between similar bacteria. While the wider the difference fewer broken reads but less precision. Is there any truth in this??

    Apologies for any misconceptions in advance.

    Best wishes lg36

Latest Articles

Collapse

  • SEQadmin2
    16S/ITS Profiling vs. Shotgun Metagenomics: What Changes in Your Workflow?
    by SEQadmin2




    NGS has revolutionized clinical microbiology by offering new ways to identify and surveil pathogens without prior knowledge of the target. One popular approach is 16S rRNA and ITS amplicon sequencing, which targets specific microbial markers. But studies are increasingly incorporating shotgun metagenomics, a technique that sequences all DNA from a sample without targeting specific microbial markers. This approach allows more detailed taxonomic classification, detection...
    Today, 06:46 AM
  • 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

ad_right_rmr

Collapse

News

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by SEQadmin2, 10-28-2026, 09:57 AM
0 responses
22 views
0 reactions
Last Post SEQadmin2  
Started by SEQadmin2, 10-28-2026, 09:51 AM
0 responses
15 views
0 reactions
Last Post SEQadmin2  
Started by SEQadmin2, 10-22-2026, 11:13 AM
0 responses
68 views
0 reactions
Last Post SEQadmin2  
Started by SEQadmin2, 10-22-2026, 10:48 AM
0 responses
48 views
0 reactions
Last Post SEQadmin2  
Working...