SEQanswers

Go Back   SEQanswers > Bioinformatics > Bioinformatics



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NUCmer benjaminversteeg Bioinformatics 3 06-17-2014 05:05 AM
How to do a discontinuous MEGABLAST using megablast? maimaiti2008 Bioinformatics 4 08-28-2013 11:07 AM
NUCmer dotplot orientation struggler Bioinformatics 0 05-29-2013 04:25 AM
nucmer output plots struggler Bioinformatics 2 04-12-2013 06:33 AM
Minimus2/nucmer assembly mscholz De novo discovery 10 08-17-2011 03:02 PM

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-28-2014, 05:34 AM   #1
benjaminversteeg
Junior Member
 
Location: Netherlands

Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 3
Default MegaBLAST vs NUCmer

Hi,

For a project I'm trying to find out which pairwise aligner is best for aligning whole (bacterial) genomes.

Important aspects for choosing the best aligner are speed and sensitivity. In this situation NUCmer and BLAST seem both great programs for making local alignments. To find out which suits best, I've ran some tests. I found out that:
- MegaBLAST is a bit more sensitive than NUCmer, because it finds more alignments, but also breaks off alignments more quickly.
- At the aspect of speed NUCmer is BLASTed away with a factor of 3 to 4. Both programs are very fast though.

My question remains, what advantages would one have when using NUCmer instead of BLAST?

Thank you
benjaminversteeg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2014, 06:27 AM   #2
Sheree Yau
Junior Member
 
Location: France

Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 6
Default

I think you answered your own question with your tests. NUCmer is faster than MEGABLAST, but perhaps less sensitive. So depending on your project, is speed more important than accuracy?

Another consideration might be whether you favour longer alignment lengths of lower identity, for example for detecting synteny. From my experience, I tend to prefer BLAST since the time is not limiting until LOTS comparisons and I find there's many tools out there that take BLAST outputs.

I also like using Artemis Comparison Tool (ACT) (http://www.sanger.ac.uk/resources/software/act/) for visualising BLAST alignments. Good luck!
Sheree Yau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2014, 06:30 AM   #3
GenoMax
Senior Member
 
Location: East Coast USA

Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,975
Default

Do include mauve in your list of programs.
GenoMax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2014, 06:45 AM   #4
Sheree Yau
Junior Member
 
Location: France

Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 6
Default

Yes agreed! MAUVE is very nice for comparing multiple bacterial genomes.
Sheree Yau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2014, 08:19 AM   #5
benjaminversteeg
Junior Member
 
Location: Netherlands

Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 3
Default

Thank you for your response. Sorry for the confusion, but with the sentence about the speed I meant that MegaBLAST is much faster. I also measured Mauve by the way.

Tested with two bacterial samples (+/- 4.2MB) with five runs. See below average durations and the sum of all coverages (can exceed 100% because some regions are aligned at multiple locations):

- NUCmer: 15.52 s / 98.27%
- Mauve: 82.40 s / 103.60%
- MegaBLAST: 4.86 s / 100.91%
- BLASTn: 33.02 s / 122.36%

Speed is important for this project, but not crucial. The thing is though that MegaBLAST is faster, but also more sensitive.. Which makes me wonder why people nowadays still choose NUCmer instead of MegaBLAST.
benjaminversteeg is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
blast, comparative genomics, nucmer

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off




All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:01 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO