SEQanswers

Go Back   SEQanswers > Sequencing Technologies/Companies > Oxford Nanopore



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Let's talk about ONT nanopore stuff! ECO Oxford Nanopore 47 09-13-2015 11:26 PM
ONT MAP - what do you plan to do with it? BBoy The Pipeline 3 03-10-2014 10:45 AM
Unique mapper on genome - multi mapper on transcriptome StephaniePi83 Bioinformatics 10 09-04-2012 01:49 AM
ONT error model and quality scoring SillyPoint The Pipeline 0 02-21-2012 08:21 AM
benchmarking BLAST szilva Bioinformatics 1 08-28-2009 09:36 AM

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-03-2016, 11:51 PM   #1
dovah
Member
 
Location: Russia

Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 18
Default ONT MinION mapper benchmarking

Hi all,

I have RNA sequencing data (D. melanogaster) from r7 and r9 flowcells. What would be your suggestion for a mapper? I'm mostly interested in benchmarking isoform detection compared to illumina HiSeq2500/PacBio RSII. I'd like to do a benchmarking of the "established" tools (since I realized this knowledge is missing), but you can suggest new ones.

Thanks in advance for suggestions.
dovah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2016, 02:25 PM   #2
gringer
David Eccles (gringer)
 
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 799
Default

bwa in nanopore mode (bwa mem -x ont2d) should be reasonable for mapping. I've had the best results from LAST (particularly for counting subsections of chimeric 2D reads), but it needs a lot of tweaking to get good results.
gringer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2016, 07:01 AM   #3
dovah
Member
 
Location: Russia

Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 18
Default

Thanks for reply, @gringer. However, may I ask you which criteria you use to say that you got best result from a given mapper? aka, what are the criteria? I can probably imagine you take into account the number of matches/mismatches per read length...but what else? I'd like to build my own benchmark. Thanks
dovah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2016, 11:48 AM   #4
gringer
David Eccles (gringer)
 
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 799
Default

Eyeballing the results. I guess my criteria for LAST tweaking is something like "length of match at an e-value threshold that looks like it would exclude noisy matches, typically >1000". When comparing different methods, it's the proportion of reads that match to the target reference genome.
gringer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2016, 06:55 PM   #5
ymc
Senior Member
 
Location: Hong Kong

Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 495
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dovah View Post
Thanks for reply, @gringer. However, may I ask you which criteria you use to say that you got best result from a given mapper? aka, what are the criteria? I can probably imagine you take into account the number of matches/mismatches per read length...but what else? I'd like to build my own benchmark. Thanks
I think you can download Loman et al's E coli K12 MG1655 data. Supposedly all the reads should come from this genome. So you align the called fastq to the reference and see how well different mapper aligns.
ymc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2016, 07:48 PM   #6
gringer
David Eccles (gringer)
 
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 799
Default

Most people testing MinION mapping statistics at the moment are only concentrating on the reads that map, and ignoring comparisons with reads that don't map. You can get really good mapping statistics if you're only looking at the best 10% of MinION reads, for example.
gringer is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
isoform, mapper, minion, rna, sequencing

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 06:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO