Unconfigured Ad

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • nicolallias
    Member
    • Jan 2010
    • 23

    gsAssembly (Newbler) de novo behaviour, inputs and outputs

    Hello there,
    It appears that the content of the ACE file is quite inconsistent with the fasta files content and the 454NewblerMetrics file:
    Sometimes, the fna files are empty, 454NewblerMetrics has no contigs nor isotigs but...
    The corresponding ACE will have a hundred contigs/isotigs with a mean depth of 10 000 and minimum size of 120.
    Looking into the ace file show that these sequences are fulled with "*".

    So I wonder: is the ace file a temporary (unfiltered) one ?

    Another point: it seems that running a de novo assembly starting from fasta and not sff improve the assembly quality (less "*" in the sequences)

    Anyone has seen that ? Is there some Newbler options to use for fixing this ?
    Cheers
  • flxlex
    Moderator
    • Nov 2008
    • 412

    #2
    Based on the fact that you state that the 454NewblerMetrics file reports no contigs, I would assume there is something that prevents assembly (or is this mapping?). Any contigs in the ace file are probably artifacts.

    What kind of project/sample/reads do you have?

    The '*' symbols represent gaps introduced to optimize the alignment, and 454 ace files have tons of them due to the homopolymer errors (or rather, variation in homopolymer length between reads). I would not deem the amount of these '*' a measure of quality. If you want to know the effect of using fasta input over sff, I would take reads from a known genome and check the correctness of the contigs relative to the reference sequence. Although I expect sff input to give better results, you never know...

    If somebody has done this already, let me know :-)

    Comment

    • nicolallias
      Member
      • Jan 2010
      • 23

      #3
      Hi flxlex,
      I'm considering de novo assemblies only, these observations are based on the study of dozens of assemblies done with Newbler 2.3 and this problem occurs:
      - on gDNA from bacteria
      - on gDNA from eukarya
      - on cDNA (option -cdna) from plantae
      But I all cases have some example cons.

      Using the same raw datas we obtained different behaviour from newbler.
      If we provide a sff file, contigs will be mainly composed by '*' what is not true if we basicly convert this file into fasta and assmble it with newbler. If doing so the asmmbly will look just fine.
      Where could the behaviour difference could come from ?

      Still investigate...
      Last edited by nicolallias; 10-15-2010, 12:02 AM.

      Comment

      • flxlex
        Moderator
        • Nov 2008
        • 412

        #4
        Originally posted by nicolallias View Post
        Hi flxlex,
        I'm considering de novo assemblies only, these observations are based on the study of dozens of assemblies done with Newbler 2.3 and this problem occurs:
        - on gDNA from bacteria
        - on gDNA from eukarya
        - on cDNA (option -cdna) from plantae
        But I all cases have some example cons.
        I don't understand, you get empty fna files and ace files with many '*' contigs for all these assemblies?

        Using the same raw datas we obtained different behaviour from newbler.
        If we provide a sff file, contigs will be mainly composed by '*' what is not true if we basicly convert this file into fasta and assmble it with newbler. If doing so the asmmbly will look just fine.
        Where could the behaviour difference could come from ?
        I am not sure, but what I would be more interested in is how correct the contigs are between assemblies using sff and fasta files. if you do this for a known genome (e.g. E. coli) what do you find?

        Comment

        • nicolallias
          Member
          • Jan 2010
          • 23

          #5
          I don't understand, you get empty fna files and ace files with many '*' contigs for all these assemblies?
          Yes
          I am not sure, but what I would be more interested in is how correct the contigs are between assemblies using sff and fasta files. if you do this for a known genome (e.g. E. coli) what do you find?
          I will do that.

          Edit: Both alignments on sff and fasta have been proceeded on E.coli, both gave ace and fna files full of contigs. But I won't look after the best method (fasta or sff) for alignment : the main question here is why ?
          Sometimes we have nothing (ace fulled of "*", fna files empty) with the sff while we have something (ace and fna files have contigs) when starting with a fasta ?

          We're getting contact with Roche...
          Last edited by nicolallias; 10-19-2010, 12:42 AM.

          Comment

          • nicolallias
            Member
            • Jan 2010
            • 23

            #6
            The problem seems to be the sff file, software developers at 454 are working on this.
            Hope some good news soon ;-)

            Comment

            • nicolallias
              Member
              • Jan 2010
              • 23

              #7
              Some news : the matter seems to be located on the sff file generation...

              Comment

              Latest Articles

              Collapse

              • SEQadmin2
                Advanced Sequencing Platforms Tackle Neuroscience’s Toughest Genomics Problems
                by SEQadmin2



                Genomics studies in neuroscience face a special challenge due to the brain’s complexity and scarcity of samples. Mapping changes in cell type and state using conventional next-generation sequencing methods remains challenging. Advances in technologies like single-cell sequencing, spatial transcriptomics, and long-read sequencing have opened the door to deeper studies of the brain and diseases like Alzheimer’s, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), and schizophrenia.
                ...
                07-09-2026, 11:10 AM
              • SEQadmin2
                Cancer Drug Resistance: The Lingering Barrier to Rising Survival
                by SEQadmin2



                Cancer survival rates have significantly increased in the last few decades in the United States, reaching a combined 70% 5-year survival rate by 2021. Behind this number, there are years of research to find new therapies, drug targets, and early detection methods. But there is one core challenge that keeps slowing down these advances, and it’s about drug resistance.

                There is no single reason why many patients don’t respond to treatment as expected. Cancer is...
                07-08-2026, 05:17 AM
              • GATTACAT
                Reply to Nine Things a Sample Prep Scientist Thinks About Before Sequencing
                by GATTACAT
                Love this - good data definitely starts from good input, and poor input can only give relatively poor data. I particularly like the mention of Nanodrop/absorbance based methods for quantification. It's such a toss up if you'll get an accurate reading or what amounts to a randomly generated number, and a lot of library/sequencing related issues can be traced back to poor quant.
                07-01-2026, 11:43 AM

              ad_right_rmr

              Collapse

              News

              Collapse

              Topics Statistics Last Post
              Started by SEQadmin2, 07-13-2026, 10:26 AM
              0 responses
              20 views
              0 reactions
              Last Post SEQadmin2  
              Started by SEQadmin2, 07-09-2026, 10:04 AM
              0 responses
              30 views
              0 reactions
              Last Post SEQadmin2  
              Started by SEQadmin2, 07-08-2026, 10:08 AM
              0 responses
              18 views
              0 reactions
              Last Post SEQadmin2  
              Started by SEQadmin2, 07-07-2026, 11:05 AM
              0 responses
              34 views
              0 reactions
              Last Post SEQadmin2  
              Working...