Go Back   SEQanswers > Sequencing Technologies/Companies > Illumina/Solexa

View Poll Results: Adding date-stamp is useful?
yes, its useful. 0 0%
yes, its useful but ... 0 0%
its irrelevant. 3 100.00%
No, its not useful. 0 0%
I don't mind this poll. 0 0%
Voters: 3. You may not vote on this poll

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Agencourt Ampure purification kit - exp date ntremblay Sample Prep / Library Generation 3 03-06-2012 03:41 AM
rerunning Oases adding -scaffolding dnusol Bioinformatics 0 11-16-2011 02:32 AM
PGM reagents and OneTouch ship date HMorrison Ion Torrent 4 09-25-2011 11:46 PM
PubMed: The Complete Chloroplast Genome Sequence of Date Palm (Phoenix dactylifera L. Newsbot! Literature Watch 0 09-22-2010 02:00 AM
Senior Lecturer in Bioinformatics - London UK - closing date 18 Aug 2008 dvh Academic/Non-Profit Jobs 0 07-15-2008 11:29 AM

Thread Tools
Old 11-10-2011, 08:52 AM   #1
Location: cinci

Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 66
Default adding date stamp to standard

I did a search and I didn't find anybody discussing this so I am posting it here for first time.

Why datestamp has not been added to the FASTQ standard format? its causing me alot of headache because I have to always go back to pipeline to figure out when a run was done.

Thanks for any input, who should be answering this question?



adding datestamp

husamia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2011, 09:10 AM   #2
Rick Westerman
Location: Purdue University, Indiana, USA

Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,104

What makes you think that the 'seqname' in a FastQ format is anywhere near a standard? As far as I know that FastQ standard is:

+seqname [ the seqname is optional]

'seqname' can be whatever someone want to put there. Thus I voted 'irrelevant' because what you are asking is, well, irrelevant and nonsensical. Feel free to change your 'seqname's to whatever you want because it does not affect the FastQ specification.

Now if you want to make a poll that we should demand that Illumina add a date to their 'seqname' ... well, that is a different matter. I doubt if Illumina would listen to us but we could try. They've certainly deviated from the Sanger-based FastQ format in the past -- e.g., quality encoding.

And I should add to Illumina's "crime" that of changing the 'seqname' in their recent version of CASAVA. The lack of paired end information in the 'seqname' broke almost every 3rd party software.

Last edited by westerman; 11-10-2011 at 11:34 AM. Reason: Added Illumina's recent 'crime' :-)
westerman is offline   Reply With Quote

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 03:55 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO