Unconfigured Ad

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • javijevi
    Member
    • Jan 2010
    • 38

    BFAST error in FindMatchesInIndexSet function

    Hi all,

    I successfully went along the first steps of BFAST pipeline, including the indexes creation, but got the below copied error when running 'bfast match' step with the following command for a fastq test file with 9 reads:

    bfast match -f reference_genome.fa -A 1 -r test.fastq -i 1 -I 2-10 1> matches.bmf 2> match.log &

    Contents of match.log:
    (...)
    Searching index file 1/1 (index #1, bin #1) complete...
    Found 4 matches.
    Found matches for 4 reads.
    Copying unmatched reads for secondary index search.
    Splitting unmatched reads into temp files.
    bfast: RunMatch.c:718: FindMatchesInIndexSet: Assertion `numReads == numWritten' failed.
    Splitting unmatched reads into temp files.
    bfast: RunMatch.c:718: FindMatchesInIndexSet: Assertion `numReads == numWritten' failed.

    Any idea?

    Thanks in advance.
  • javijevi
    Member
    • Jan 2010
    • 38

    #2
    Originally posted by javijevi View Post
    Splitting unmatched reads into temp files.
    bfast: RunMatch.c:718: FindMatchesInIndexSet: Assertion `numReads == numWritten' failed.
    Splitting unmatched reads into temp files.
    bfast: RunMatch.c:718: FindMatchesInIndexSet: Assertion `numReads == numWritten' failed.
    Just to tell that I made a mistake in copying twice the last two lines of the output.

    Comment

    • nilshomer
      Nils Homer
      • Nov 2008
      • 1283

      #3
      Originally posted by javijevi View Post
      Hi all,

      I successfully went along the first steps of BFAST pipeline, including the indexes creation, but got the below copied error when running 'bfast match' step with the following command for a fastq test file with 9 reads:

      bfast match -f reference_genome.fa -A 1 -r test.fastq -i 1 -I 2-10 1> matches.bmf 2> match.log &

      Contents of match.log:
      (...)
      Searching index file 1/1 (index #1, bin #1) complete...
      Found 4 matches.
      Found matches for 4 reads.
      Copying unmatched reads for secondary index search.
      Splitting unmatched reads into temp files.
      bfast: RunMatch.c:718: FindMatchesInIndexSet: Assertion `numReads == numWritten' failed.
      Splitting unmatched reads into temp files.
      bfast: RunMatch.c:718: FindMatchesInIndexSet: Assertion `numReads == numWritten' failed.

      Any idea?

      Thanks in advance.
      Any reason why you want to use secondary indexes? I would recommend using all the indexes in the primary search (no secondary indexes).

      This may be a bug (with the secondary search). Please submit your report to [email protected] so we can resolve the issue quickly.

      Comment

      • nilshomer
        Nils Homer
        • Nov 2008
        • 1283

        #4
        Originally posted by nilshomer View Post
        Any reason why you want to use secondary indexes? I would recommend using all the indexes in the primary search (no secondary indexes).

        This may be a bug (with the secondary search). Please submit your report to [email protected] so we can resolve the issue quickly.
        I have found the bug and fixed the latest source code available via GIT. Let me know if you have any problems: )

        Comment

        • javijevi
          Member
          • Jan 2010
          • 38

          #5
          Originally posted by nilshomer View Post
          Any reason why you want to use secondary indexes? I would recommend using all the indexes in the primary search (no secondary indexes).
          In BFAST book, you can find the following: 'If you wish to have a secondary set of indexes, which are used if no matches are found in the main set of indexes, use the -I option'. So, I thought that it was more efficient to not use a mismatch-allowing index, e.g., 1110111110011111, for reads which were already mapped by using an all-matchs index, that is, 11111111111111.

          Obviously, I missed something important in this issue because of the complexity of the index-based search algorithm for a biologist, and I therefore will blindly follow your recommendation about not using secondary indexes.

          Comment

          • nilshomer
            Nils Homer
            • Nov 2008
            • 1283

            #6
            Originally posted by javijevi View Post
            In BFAST book, you can find the following: 'If you wish to have a secondary set of indexes, which are used if no matches are found in the main set of indexes, use the -I option'. So, I thought that it was more efficient to not use a mismatch-allowing index, e.g., 1110111110011111, for reads which were already mapped by using an all-matchs index, that is, 11111111111111.

            Obviously, I missed something important in this issue because of the complexity of the index-based search algorithm for a biologist, and I therefore will blindly follow your recommendation about not using secondary indexes.
            I have spent a lot of time thinking about the indexing strategy and I would follow the strategy found in section 7.1 where we use 10 "main" indexes and no secondary indexes.

            I apologize for the confusion but I tried to keep options for flexibility.

            Comment

            Latest Articles

            Collapse

            ad_right_rmr

            Collapse

            News

            Collapse

            Topics Statistics Last Post
            Started by SEQadmin2, 06-05-2026, 10:09 AM
            0 responses
            17 views
            0 reactions
            Last Post SEQadmin2  
            Started by SEQadmin2, 06-04-2026, 08:59 AM
            0 responses
            34 views
            0 reactions
            Last Post SEQadmin2  
            Started by SEQadmin2, 06-02-2026, 12:03 PM
            0 responses
            37 views
            0 reactions
            Last Post SEQadmin2  
            Started by SEQadmin2, 06-02-2026, 11:40 AM
            0 responses
            24 views
            0 reactions
            Last Post SEQadmin2  
            Working...