As GenoMax says, trimming to Q30 is not beneficial before merging reads. BBMerge has some internal quality-trimming options, so it can try to merge, then quality-trim if it is unsuccessful, then try to merge again, etc. That can slightly increase the merge rate. But typically I just use the whole untrimmed reads as input. The longer the input reads are, the less likely it is for BBMerge to make an accidental incorrect merge, and it does take quality scores into account, so I do not recommend quality-trimming prior to BBMerge. Adapter-trimming is fine though.
Unconfigured Ad
Collapse
X
-
Merge pairs before normalisation?
Hello, I'm building a pipeline for metagenomics.
I follow the bb tools user guide and do:
- normalization with bbnorm
- error correction with tedpole
- merge (with extension) with bbmerge
I want to increase the merging to get a better assembly.
I suspect that many reads, which could be merge are thrown away during the normalisation.
Wouldn't it be better to do merging (without extension) first than taking primarily the merged reads, normalize, error-correct and merge with extension?
What is the best way of normalising paired end and merged pairs or singletons in bbnorm?
For now I do two rounds of bbnorm and supply the other reads via the `extra` parameter, is there a better way to do?
Comment
-
-
Hi,
I have the shotgun data. Paired-end reads 100bp each end. I want to do MetaPhlAn2 next to know the general taxonomy profile.
So I am considering to merge them before the MetaPhlAn2. However, I do not know I need to run bbmap first to do quality control, OR to run bbmerge first to merge the sequence. Any suggestions?
Thanks in advance
Comment
-
-
@chloe - It's normally simplest and most effective to do QC first on the raw data, then anything else (such as merging) later.
@silask - they way you are doing it is currently the most effective way. It's a little bit annoying to have to run BBNorm twice, but that's the only way to process both paired and unpaired reads.
Comment
-
-
Hi, Brian,
Thanks for the reply. However, I have tried the QC. I used
bbduk.sh in=R1.fastq.gz out=filter_R1.fq maq=30
bbduk.sh in=R2.fastq.gz out=filter_R2.fq maq=30
(no reads in R1R2 will be trimmed)
bbduk.sh in=R1.fastq.gz out=clean_R1.fq trimq=30
bbduk.sh in=R2.fastq.gz out=clean_R2.fq trimq=30
(it will trim 50% of reverse reads, but no forward reads)
bbduk.sh in1=R1.fastq.gz in2=R2.fastq.gz out1=R1_001.fq out2=R2.fq outm=fail.fq bhist=hist_base.txt qhist=hist_q.txt aqhist=hist_aq.txt bqhist=hist_bq.txt ecco=t
(Also no reads will be trimmed)
But when I run the code BBmerge, only 32.268% of the reads can be joined.
Do you have any suggestions?
Thanks in advance.
Comment
-
-
@chloe1005: It is possible that only 32% of your reads have inserts of a size that the reads can merge.
`trimq=30` is too severe a bar for trimming. If you have a reference genome then not doing any trimming for quality works fine. If you are doing any de novo work then you may want to trim at Q20 or Q25.
Comment
-
-
Hi,
I am still confusing about the difference between the quality trimming and quality filtering. What is the difference between them?
May also know how to get the reference genome? Since I also see the first threads in this post.
Looking forward to getting the answer.
Comment
-
-
RQCFilter Norm and EC
Hi Brian,
I am trying to trim and filter my data with RQCFilter but I cannot find an option for normalisation and error correction. Are there any parameters in this package? Also there is a parameter called -merge. Does it do merging? Should I set it to false and try normalising and error correcting first?
Comment
-
-
Source: https://jgi.doe.gov/data-and-tools/b...preprocessing/
"These steps replicate the QA protocol implemented at JGI for Illumina reads. There is a program “RQCFilter” which implements them as a pipeline, but that is not publically available because it has numerous hard-coded paths to reference datasets of contaminants."
It is in the bbtools files.
Nevermind! 1) Is it a good plan to normalise and error correct first BEFORE merging? 2) Do I need to follow a different approach at trimming and filtering short vs long mate pair reads (Nextera)?Last edited by kokyriakidis; 07-08-2018, 12:15 PM.
Comment
-
-
Since notes on the page you linked say this:
You should follow the steps that are denoted to replicate that functionality on the linked page.There is a program “RQCFilter” which implements them as a pipeline, but that is not publically available because it has numerous hard-coded paths to reference datasets of contaminants.
In general @Brian has recommended merging reads before doing any additional manipulations.
Comment
-
-
In long pair mate reads I just do the splitNextera extra step? Otherwise the pipeline remains the same?Originally posted by GenoMax View PostSince notes on the page you linked say this:
You should follow the steps that are denoted to replicate that functionality on the linked page.
In general @Brian has recommended merging reads before doing any additional manipulations.
Comment
-
Latest Articles
Collapse
-
by GATTACATLove 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.
-
Channel: Articles
Yesterday, 11:43 AM -
-
by SEQadmin2
I’m not a sequencing expert. I’m a purification scientist who uses NGS to evaluate workflows my group develops. With this perspective, we think about the sample first and the NGS workflow second. The sequencer is an exceptionally honest reporter, but it can only report on what you give it, so whether you get clean, interpretable data from an NGS workflow is largely determined before you begin.
Here are nine questions we think about, in roughly the order they matter, before...-
Channel: Articles
-
ad_right_rmr
Collapse
News
Collapse
| Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Started by SEQadmin2, Today, 11:08 AM
|
0 responses
6 views
0 reactions
|
Last Post
by SEQadmin2
Today, 11:08 AM
|
||
|
Started by SEQadmin2, 06-30-2026, 05:37 AM
|
0 responses
11 views
0 reactions
|
Last Post
by SEQadmin2
06-30-2026, 05:37 AM
|
||
|
Started by SEQadmin2, 06-26-2026, 11:10 AM
|
0 responses
18 views
0 reactions
|
Last Post
by SEQadmin2
06-26-2026, 11:10 AM
|
||
|
Whole-Genome Sequencing Traces Faroe Islands Ancestry to a North Atlantic Founder Population
by SEQadmin2
Started by SEQadmin2, 06-17-2026, 06:09 AM
|
0 responses
52 views
0 reactions
|
Last Post
by SEQadmin2
06-17-2026, 06:09 AM
|
Comment