Data retention

[new300]

My group has archived all bzip2'd image files to 2Tb USB disks. Currently they are £200 from western digital. Seemed cheap in comparison to reagents/lab time.

Partly, we also thought better base calling algorithms than Bustard are already in development. e.g altacyclic, others. Can someone perhaps start a thread on this?

dvh

With GA2 and read lengths approaching 100bp paired end this probably becomes infeasible. Storing the raw intensity I think gives you the biggest bang for your storage buck. All the new basecallers work from raw intensities, not images.

It's true there's a lot to be gained back using improved image analysis, perhaps 10 or 20%, it's all a trade off.

[ScottC]

What would you expect or hope to be able to achive by reanalysing the images?

Well, if I understand correctly, the new pipeline that's on the way is supposed to increase the data output by 15-30% just through image analysis improvements alone. There's a lot of room for improvement in that area, apparently.

That being said, we're keeping the images on our server only until we have no more room, then they'll be deleted as space is required. Individuals can keep the raw data on external disks if they want it.

Scott.

[dvh]

My group has archived all bzip2'd image files to 2Tb USB disks. Currently they are £200 from western digital. Seemed cheap in comparison to reagents/lab time.

Partly, we also thought better base calling algorithms than Bustard are already in development. e.g altacyclic, others. Can someone perhaps start a thread on this?

dvh

[dsturgill]

What would you expect or hope to be able to achive by reanalysing the images?

My thought was that future improvements in the image segmentation algorithm or intensity extraction could give you different results later on. For example, improvements might be better able to discern individual clusters when density is very high.

In our microarray experiments, we always save raw images rather than just intensities, since we see variation whenever you do gridding or intensity extraction.

You're right - saving sample to re-run later is a logical approach. Deleting what we see as raw data may be simply be a mental hurdle to get over.

[Chipper]

Storing the "raw data" as DNA in the freezer is likely going to be a more cost-effective option...

What would you expect or hope to be able to achive by reanalysing the images?

[new300]

It's possible to retain images on GA2s of course, but they are a lot bigger... In general it's reasonable to retain the raw intensity and noise files as reprocessing those with new basecallers may be of interest.

If look at the data retained by the NCBI in the short read archive they are currently storing Raw intensity and noise files, processed intensities, the 4 quality scores and the fastq files (the SRFs also have the settings used to generate the data I believe). I think the short read archive only contains PF (purity filtered data) at the moment.

Personally I think that's overkill. I'd store the raw intensities (PF and non-PF), 4 quality scores and a basecall. Bare in mind that it is possible to regenerate everything from a complete set of raw intensities.

[dsturgill]

Hi Folks -

How about a survey to see what data people retain from sequencing experiments? We have completed ~ 10 runs on an Illumina GA I, and have stored complete raw data (images, raw intensities, etc... the complete run folder), on external 1TB disks. I don't think everyone stores images long term. We may not be able to keep it up forever.

Anyone know if it is possible to retain images using GA II?