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
-
CRISPR/Cas9 sparked the gene editing revolution for both research and therapeutics.1 But this system still showed severe issues that limited its applications. The most prominent were the heavy reliance on PAM sequences, delivery limitations, double-stranded breaks that prompt unintended edits and cell death, and editing inefficiency (both in targeting and in knock-in reliability).
Despite this, “CRISPR helped turn genome editing from a specialized technique into...07-31-2026, 11:01 AM -
Proteomics platforms are evolving rapidly, with advances in mass spectrometry and affinity-based approaches expanding what researchers can detect and at what scale. As the field moves toward deeper proteome coverage and clinical applications, scientists face an increasingly complex landscape of tools. This article will explore how researchers are navigating these choices to find the right platform for their work.
The systematic characterization of the human proteome has...07-20-2026, 11:48 AM
Comment