Tweet
Is it unacceptable to remove chimeras, shorter than expected reads, and low q-score reads prior to doing a rarefaction analysis? I'm working with 454 16S data and it just makes sense to remove this kind of data from each library prior to alignment and clustering. I've been questioned on my method that told that rarefaction analysis should be calculated on raw data. Thoughts?
-
Last edited by lisa.brown; 02-11-2014, 07:29 AM. -
Would you have used those reads anyway for downstream analyses? If not, then I would find it difficult to argue against removing them. -
Great! That's my reasoning as well, the removed reads WOULDN'T be used for downstream analysis so why produce rarefaction data that isn't comparable to downstream hierarchy data?Comment
-
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...04-22-2024, 07:01 AM -
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
Comment