Per the request here, it seems time to create this forum! I'm really excited to see where this data goes and when I can get my hands on a MinION!
Seqanswers Leaderboard Ad
Collapse
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
-
They're tiny!
That said, it's not entirely clear to me what users are allowed to discuss about results, though I will describe my methodology for evaluating it. I used both the 1D and 2D reads (converted to fastq), and mapped with this command line:
Code:mapPacBio.sh -Xmx30g k=7 in=reads.fastq ref=reference.fa maxreadlen=1000 minlen=200 idtag ow int=f qin=33 mhist=mhist1.txt idhist=idhist1.txt ehist=ehist1.txt indelhist=indelhist1.txt lhist=lhist1.txt gchist=gchist1.txt qhist=qhist1.txt qahist=qahist1.txt bhist=bhist1.txt out=mapped1.sam minratio=0.15 ignorequality slow ordered maxindel1=40 maxindel2=400 nodisk bs=bs1.sh
If you run the resulting "bs1.sh" bash shellscript, and have samtools installed, it will turn the sam output into a sorted, indexed bam file ready for IGV.Last edited by Brian Bushnell; 09-25-2014, 05:44 PM.
-
Originally posted by Brian Bushnell View PostThis command breaks reads over 1kbp into 1kbp pieces and maps them independently; you can set this higher (up to 6kbp) but the mapping rate drops as the shred length increases.
Comment
-
Originally posted by WhatsOEver View PostAnd can you state on why it is dropping? To many errors in the alignment? Breaking the reads into small fragments sounds like one step backwards to me
Comment
-
About a month back, one of my collaborators asked me to check about Oxford Nanopore, because she was planning to do a large sequencing project with Illumina+Pacbio, and wanted to know whether waiting for ONT would save her money. She heard good things from another colleague about the portability of Minions and was curious. I am not involved in the early access program and looked for any information available publicly. Based on what I found, I believe the company is advised by incompetent scientists, who are getting the company bad reputation.
My personal background - I have been working on nanotechnology since 1993, wrote the first (and highly cited) paper on calculating electrical current through small organic molecules in 1995 and worked with the NASA Nanotech group for several years in early 2000 before moving on to genomics. At NASA, one my closest collaborator worked on nanopore sequencing and another one worked on computational modeling current flow through the pore. However, I was never directly involved in either of those projects and the main reason being signal quality from the pores. So, the first thing I wanted to find out about ONT is the error rate, because the electrical signal from molecules moving at room temperature tends to get noisy. This is basic quantum (and statistical) physics, which no amount of technology can overcome.
The error rate is very important in deciding about assembly projects. It is definitely possible to do assembly from long erroneous reads, but you will need more reads and that means your costs go up. At the end of the day, my collaborator is interested in comparative costs between various technologies.
I tried to find a straight answer for over a month and could not. For example, Michael Schatz, who is involved in early access program, posted a figure showing 'assembly from nanopore' in twitter. When I asked him about the error rate, he gave some philosophical answer - 'I do not care, because assembly is possible, as long as there is more signal than noise'. WTF? Based on his slides from a recent conference (see here), he had the numbers, but decided to stonewall. Then I learned that the assembly was done with nanopore+ILMN (hybrid), whereas PacBio assemblies are done with PacBio only. Neither did I get a straight answer about error rate from Nick Loman - another scientist working closely with ONT CEO to release data. Those frustrations led me to write this blog post about the company -
An infinite amount of propaganda being spread about Oxford Nanopore really troubles the lowly janitors like us. We are not sure why this company and its ‘fanboys’ operate with innuendos passed around social media channels and not deliver any real information like other respectable companies would do. Hopefully Nick Loman’s presentation tomorrow will be backed by release of some real data, but until then scientists’ job is not to cheer-lead for companies, but find out the truth and represent it faithfully and accurately. The scientific community is failing to play its proper role just like they failed to debunk Ewan Birney’s misleading media campaign about ‘killing the junk DNA’ (@ENCODE_NIH). In fact, in case of ENCODE, scientists were so married to the propaganda from Birney and friends that even reputed journals attacked Dan Graur for simply telling the truth.
The situation seems to have improved somewhat after the company allowed Nick Loman to release his data (check our blog for link), and Michael Schatz posted his slides with the kind of information one needs to make decisions -
At last we get the analysis of Oxford Nanopore data that we had been looking for since first day. Michael Schatz posted the GI2014 slides of James Gurtowski from his lab in his website.
Hopefully, others will take a look at the data and come up with an objective answer regarding what is possible and not possible. The technology has promises, but error rate is a critical concern.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Brian Bushnell View PostThe Nanopore reads I've seen have a sort of 'bistable' error model - lower for a while, then higher for a while, then lower for a while, etc. The higher-error mode is harder to map. Breaking the reads into pieces allows mapping the lower-error-mode pieces and discarding the higher-error-mode pieces; the shorter the piece, the more likely it will be entirely within a lower-error-mode region.
This thing is definitely a physicist's paradise and would give rise to interesting physics papers, similar to what we used to do on current transport during early 1990s.
Comment
-
Originally posted by samanta View PostAbout a month back, one of my collaborators asked me to check about Oxford Nanopore, because she was planning to do a large sequencing project with Illumina+Pacbio, and wanted to know whether waiting for ONT would save her money. She heard good things from another colleague about the portability of Minions and was curious. I am not involved in the early access program and looked for any information available publicly. Based on what I found, I believe the company is advised by incompetent scientists, who are getting the company bad reputation.
My personal background - I have been working on nanotechnology since 1993, wrote the first (and highly cited) paper on calculating electrical current through small organic molecules in 1995 and worked with the NASA Nanotech group for several years in early 2000 before moving on to genomics. At NASA, one my closest collaborator worked on nanopore sequencing and another one worked on computational modeling current flow through the pore. However, I was never directly involved in either of those projects and the main reason being signal quality from the pores. So, the first thing I wanted to find out about ONT is the error rate, because the electrical signal from molecules moving at room temperature tends to get noisy. This is basic quantum (and statistical) physics, which no amount of technology can overcome.
The error rate is very important in deciding about assembly projects. It is definitely possible to do assembly from long erroneous reads, but you will need more reads and that means your costs go up. At the end of the day, my collaborator is interested in comparative costs between various technologies.
I tried to find a straight answer for over a month and could not. For example, Michael Schatz, who is involved in early access program, posted a figure showing 'assembly from nanopore' in twitter. When I asked him about the error rate, he gave some philosophical answer - 'I do not care, because assembly is possible, as long as there is more signal than noise'. WTF? Based on his slides from a recent conference (see here), he had the numbers, but decided to stonewall. Then I learned that the assembly was done with nanopore+ILMN (hybrid), whereas PacBio assemblies are done with PacBio only. Neither did I get a straight answer about error rate from Nick Loman - another scientist working closely with ONT CEO to release data. Those frustrations led me to write this blog post about the company -
An infinite amount of propaganda being spread about Oxford Nanopore really troubles the lowly janitors like us. We are not sure why this company and its ‘fanboys’ operate with innuendos passed around social media channels and not deliver any real information like other respectable companies would do. Hopefully Nick Loman’s presentation tomorrow will be backed by release of some real data, but until then scientists’ job is not to cheer-lead for companies, but find out the truth and represent it faithfully and accurately. The scientific community is failing to play its proper role just like they failed to debunk Ewan Birney’s misleading media campaign about ‘killing the junk DNA’ (@ENCODE_NIH). In fact, in case of ENCODE, scientists were so married to the propaganda from Birney and friends that even reputed journals attacked Dan Graur for simply telling the truth.
The situation seems to have improved somewhat after the company allowed Nick Loman to release his data (check our blog for link), and Michael Schatz posted his slides with the kind of information one needs to make decisions -
At last we get the analysis of Oxford Nanopore data that we had been looking for since first day. Michael Schatz posted the GI2014 slides of James Gurtowski from his lab in his website.
Hopefully, others will take a look at the data and come up with an objective answer regarding what is possible and not possible. The technology has promises, but error rate is a critical concern.
Comment
-
ten fold compared to what?
Check page 13 of Michael Schatz's slides I posted here.
At last we get the analysis of Oxford Nanopore data that we had been looking for since first day. Michael Schatz posted the GI2014 slides of James Gurtowski from his lab in his website.
Illumina alone - N50=59Kb
Illumina + Nanopore - N50=362kbp
Illumina + Pacbio - N50=811kbp
So, my collaborator will lose by going from Pacbio to Nanopore. Moreover, the promise of carrying USB stick to the field does not hold, if she has to also carry a 90Kg Illumina machine.
Comment
-
Originally posted by samanta View PostThat is possibly due to the molecule moving through the pore at different speed, and the HMM (Viterbi) calculation for base-calling being fixed at one mode and miscalling in the other mode.
This thing is definitely a physicist's paradise and would give rise to interesting physics papers, similar to what we used to do on current transport during early 1990s.
Systematic error is likely to be troubling.
Comment
-
Originally posted by samanta View Postten fold compared to what?
Check page 13 of Michael Schatz's slides I posted here.
At last we get the analysis of Oxford Nanopore data that we had been looking for since first day. Michael Schatz posted the GI2014 slides of James Gurtowski from his lab in his website.
Illumina alone - N50=59Kb
Illumina + Nanopore - N50=362kbp
Illumina + Pacbio - N50=811kbp
So, my collaborator will lose by going from Pacbio to Nanopore. Moreover, the promise of carrying USB stick to the field does not hold, if she has to also carry a 90Kg Illumina machine.
Anyway read the paper when it comes out. I can't post further info about it.
There is data showing over 99% accuracy of ONT data aligned to reference genomes which is not yet publicly available.
Comment
-
Originally posted by samanta View PostThat is possibly due to the molecule moving through the pore at different speed, and the HMM (Viterbi) calculation for base-calling being fixed at one mode and miscalling in the other mode.
This thing is definitely a physicist's paradise and would give rise to interesting physics papers, similar to what we used to do on current transport during early 1990s.
Comment
Latest Articles
Collapse
-
by seqadmin
The first FDA-approved CRISPR-based therapy marked the transition of therapeutic gene editing from a dream to reality1. CRISPR technologies have streamlined gene editing, and CRISPR screens have become an important approach for identifying genes involved in disease processes2. This technique introduces targeted mutations across numerous genes, enabling large-scale identification of gene functions, interactions, and pathways3. Identifying the full range...-
Channel: Articles
08-27-2024, 04:44 AM -
-
by seqadmin
Sequencing mRNA provides a snapshot of cellular activity, allowing researchers to study the dynamics of cellular processes, compare gene expression across different tissue types, and gain insights into the mechanisms of complex diseases. “mRNA’s central role in the dogma of molecular biology makes it a logical and relevant focus for transcriptomic studies,” stated Sebastian Aguilar Pierlé, Ph.D., Application Development Lead at Inorevia. “One of the major hurdles for...-
Channel: Articles
08-07-2024, 12:11 PM -
ad_right_rmr
Collapse
News
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by seqadmin, 08-27-2024, 04:40 AM
|
0 responses
16 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seqadmin
08-27-2024, 04:40 AM
|
||
New Single-Molecule Sequencing Platform Introduces Advanced Features for High-Throughput Genomics
by seqadmin
Started by seqadmin, 08-22-2024, 05:00 AM
|
0 responses
293 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seqadmin
08-22-2024, 05:00 AM
|
||
Started by seqadmin, 08-21-2024, 10:49 AM
|
0 responses
135 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seqadmin
08-21-2024, 10:49 AM
|
||
Started by seqadmin, 08-19-2024, 05:12 AM
|
0 responses
124 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seqadmin
08-19-2024, 05:12 AM
|
Comment