Seqanswers Leaderboard Ad

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Minimum contig coverage to keep

    Dear all,

    I am working on de novo assembly of bacterial genomes. Genomes were sequenced with Miseq 2x250 libs with an average coverage ~40X. Adapters were trimmed with cutadapt by the seq provider, then I performed quality trimming with BBduk and now de novo assembly with SPAdes 3.9.

    I ran some genomes with and without the cov-cutoff <auto> option and I've been comparing both assemblies.

    I've seen that for some genomes, the cov-cutoff option in auto mode still keeps some contigs (actually, I am looking at scaffolds) with low coverage (~1) whereas for other genomes the minimum is much higher (~14).

    Genomes will be compared using various tools, including ANI calculation. I'd rather not introduce bias by throwing away too much data from some genomes and not from others, or the contrary (keeping "junk" in some and not in other genomes).

    I BLASTed some of the low cov contigs to see if these are contaminations and I cannot tell if they are, because I they align to various sequences in the genus I am working on.

    So the question is basically:

    1. How SPAdes chooses the minimum coverage using the cov-cutoff <auto> option?

    2. Is there and what is the minimum contig coverage people suggest to keep/discard contigs?


    Thanks!

  • #2
    Are these single-cell libraries or isolate libraries? With isolate libraries there is no reason to expect highly variable coverage and contigs with much lower coverage than normal are most likely contaminants (or "junk"). If they align to the same genus then they are less likely to be contamination and more likely to be ... well, some other variety of thing that you don't want, like assembly from chimeric reads or some other artifact. With single-cell it's much more difficult to determine.

    Comment


    • #3
      These are isolate libraries.

      When I BLAST short contigs (<200bp) with high coverage (10'sx), these are often parts of ribosomal genes. When I BLAST contigs of length 200-~500bp, where most of low coverage contigs are, these are often pieces of different species in the genus or so isolates not identified to species level.

      So the question is then what is "coverage much lower than normal"? Should I stick to a standard cut-off for all genomes? What this cut-off usually is? Or the "auto" mode in SPAdes should be enough?

      Comment


      • #4
        "coverage much lower than normal" is on a per-library basis; you can't have a single cutoff value that's always appropriate. That said, while it's difficult to make strict rules... if a contig has coverage under 25% of the median coverage, in an isolate, it's probably best to discard it. Bear in mind, though, that bacterial isolates can have differential coverage by up to ~50% biased toward the origin of replication if you gathered the DNA during exponential growth phase.

        Comment

        Latest Articles

        Collapse

        • seqadmin
          Essential Discoveries and Tools in Epitranscriptomics
          by seqadmin


          The field of epigenetics has traditionally concentrated more on DNA and how changes like methylation and phosphorylation of histones impact gene expression and regulation. However, our increased understanding of RNA modifications and their importance in cellular processes has led to a rise in epitranscriptomics research. “Epitranscriptomics brings together the concepts of epigenetics and gene expression,” explained Adrien Leger, PhD, Principal Research Scientist on Modified Bases...
          Yesterday, 07:01 AM
        • seqadmin
          Current Approaches to Protein Sequencing
          by seqadmin


          Proteins are often described as the workhorses of the cell, and identifying their sequences is key to understanding their role in biological processes and disease. Currently, the most common technique used to determine protein sequences is mass spectrometry. While still a valuable tool, mass spectrometry faces several limitations and requires a highly experienced scientist familiar with the equipment to operate it. Additionally, other proteomic methods, like affinity assays, are constrained...
          04-04-2024, 04:25 PM

        ad_right_rmr

        Collapse

        News

        Collapse

        Topics Statistics Last Post
        Started by seqadmin, 04-11-2024, 12:08 PM
        0 responses
        49 views
        0 likes
        Last Post seqadmin  
        Started by seqadmin, 04-10-2024, 10:19 PM
        0 responses
        50 views
        0 likes
        Last Post seqadmin  
        Started by seqadmin, 04-10-2024, 09:21 AM
        0 responses
        44 views
        0 likes
        Last Post seqadmin  
        Started by seqadmin, 04-04-2024, 09:00 AM
        0 responses
        55 views
        0 likes
        Last Post seqadmin  
        Working...
        X