Is it unacceptable to remove chimeras, shorter than expected reads, and low q-score reads prior to doing a rarefaction analysis? I'm working with 454 16S data and it just makes sense to remove this kind of data from each library prior to alignment and clustering. I've been questioned on my method that told that rarefaction analysis should be calculated on raw data. Thoughts?
-
Last edited by lisa.brown; 02-11-2014, 07:29 AM. -
Would you have used those reads anyway for downstream analyses? If not, then I would find it difficult to argue against removing them. -
Great! That's my reasoning as well, the removed reads WOULDN'T be used for downstream analysis so why produce rarefaction data that isn't comparable to downstream hierarchy data?Comment
-
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 -
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...
Comment