SEQanswers

Go Back   SEQanswers > Sequencing Technologies/Companies > Oxford Nanopore



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Error rate in BBMAP mido1951 Bioinformatics 17 02-20-2016 09:01 AM
Illumina Error rate ClemBuntu Bioinformatics 9 12-09-2015 12:52 PM
minion error rate mido1951 Oxford Nanopore 15 11-06-2015 01:17 AM
error rate der_eiskern Illumina/Solexa 0 12-11-2009 02:51 PM

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-01-2017, 12:13 PM   #1
thermophile
Senior Member
 
Location: CT

Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 233
Default R9.4 2D error rate

I'm interested in starting to use the minion for meso-throughput targeted sequencing (1.5-3kb amplicons). I haven't heard error rates for the R9 since just after they were released (Nick Loman's blog). What are people getting in the wild? If you can fully overlap the 2d reads, what's the consensus sequence error rate?
__________________
Microbial ecologist, running a sequencing core. I have lots of strong opinions on how to survey communities, pretty sure some are even correct.
thermophile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2017, 02:39 AM   #2
Ola
Member
 
Location: Sweden

Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 30
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thermophile View Post
I'm interested in starting to use the minion for meso-throughput targeted sequencing (1.5-3kb amplicons). I haven't heard error rates for the R9 since just after they were released (Nick Loman's blog). What are people getting in the wild? If you can fully overlap the 2d reads, what's the consensus sequence error rate?

Good question. For 1D it is ~10-12% now, somewhat sample/sequence and alignment dependent. That would give you ~5-fold more data compared to 2D runs, but if you plan for barcoding and don't need the troughput 2D gives slightly lower error rates (can be ~3% but more often 6-10).

Consensus errors (from many reads) are mainly around short homopolymers but other sequences can show up as heterozygotes as well before polishing.
Ola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2017, 07:30 AM   #3
thermophile
Senior Member
 
Location: CT

Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 233
Default

Thanks. I'm afraid that's not good enough yet for what I want to do. But that's good to know.
__________________
Microbial ecologist, running a sequencing core. I have lots of strong opinions on how to survey communities, pretty sure some are even correct.
thermophile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2017, 10:08 AM   #4
Ola
Member
 
Location: Sweden

Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 30
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thermophile View Post
Thanks. I'm afraid that's not good enough yet for what I want to do. But that's good to know.
I checked error rates (bwa mem -x ont2d + picard CollectAlignmentSummary) for an amplicon run now, with 145 2D reads for a 8 kb human region. It gave 1.5% subst error and 3.2 % indel errors. This was reads from end of run, and with high coverage we can quality-filter reads if a lower average error rate is needed. Taking only the top 20% of reads (base qv > 25 on average) yields error rates of 0.66% for subst and 2.3 % for indels.
Ola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2017, 10:12 AM   #5
gringer
David Eccles (gringer)
 
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 821
Default

What do you want to do?
gringer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2017, 11:49 AM   #6
thermophile
Senior Member
 
Location: CT

Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 233
Default

taxonomic surveys-I generally want to look at many samples shallowly. I'm considering doing 16/18S + ITS1 to allow for the error rate but would need to do more bioinformatic pipeline writing than I currently have ability/time. I want to do this but think I'll push it to back burner for a few months till either the error rate drops or I have time/find a student to work on some processing pipeline that could leverage both ITS and 16s for clustering.
__________________
Microbial ecologist, running a sequencing core. I have lots of strong opinions on how to survey communities, pretty sure some are even correct.
thermophile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2017, 01:06 PM   #7
Brian Bushnell
Super Moderator
 
Location: Walnut Creek, CA

Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 2,707
Default

PacBio CCS reads work great for full-length 16S sequencing. Typically ~99.5% accuracy for the best read in each cluster.
Brian Bushnell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2017, 06:55 AM   #8
thermophile
Senior Member
 
Location: CT

Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 233
Default

Thanks Brian, I didn't mention that I'm trying to come up with a way to get longer reads that we can do inhouse and we don't have pacbio. I'm still waffling. It's cheap enough to try that I may give it a shot and try tempering my expectations.
__________________
Microbial ecologist, running a sequencing core. I have lots of strong opinions on how to survey communities, pretty sure some are even correct.
thermophile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2017, 12:31 PM   #9
gringer
David Eccles (gringer)
 
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 821
Default

For taxonomic surveys, you'd be better off doing a full metagenomic analysis instead of looking at specific genes. The MinION is more than adequate for this purpose.

Metrichor provides a WIMP ("What's In My Pot") workflow for doing exactly this. It uses Kraken* behind the scenes to vote on the origin of subsequences of each read, generating a consensus taxon for each read. The end result is a tree with counts that will show in real time (i.e. during sequencing) the content of your sample. The output using extracted, unamplified DNA correlates extremely well with the expected output for "canned" metagenomic samples:

https://nanoporetech.com/publication...ts-my-pot-wimp

* it used to use Kraken, but that may have changed with recent releases
gringer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2017, 06:59 AM   #10
wdecoster
Member
 
Location: Antwerp, Belgium

Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 96
Default

The error rate is also species-dependent. If I'm not mistaken the basecaller is mainly trained on the e.colli and lambda genome. Improvements to base calling for human genomes will happen if training is also applied to those genomes. (I believe this is being worked on).
wdecoster is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 09:01 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO