I am sorry I did not provide the result immediately. All comparison was done under default parameter settings.
I have compared the Bioscope and BFAST. The mapping seems rather consistent. The fraction of mappable reads are very similar, and Bioscope outperforms BFAST slightly on my test data set. The final computation of RPKM shows high correlation. I have not computed the correlation, but I would say it would be >0.95,
BFAST runs slower than Bioscope. But I think the good thing for BFAST is that if you could design more mask for BFAST, it would map more reads.
I have also used Bowtie, its fast (amazing), But it maps much less reads. (BFAST and Bioscope can map 60% reads, while Bowtie maps 30% reads)
I have compared the Bioscope and BFAST. The mapping seems rather consistent. The fraction of mappable reads are very similar, and Bioscope outperforms BFAST slightly on my test data set. The final computation of RPKM shows high correlation. I have not computed the correlation, but I would say it would be >0.95,
BFAST runs slower than Bioscope. But I think the good thing for BFAST is that if you could design more mask for BFAST, it would map more reads.
I have also used Bowtie, its fast (amazing), But it maps much less reads. (BFAST and Bioscope can map 60% reads, while Bowtie maps 30% reads)
Originally posted by jlli
View Post
Comment