|
|
|
|
|||||||
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| NextSeq 500, High-Output Paired end reads - upper/lower limits for insert sizes? | husseh01 | Illumina/Solexa | 7 | 04-25-2018 11:52 PM |
| Bioanalyzer/TapeStation fragment sizes larger than agarose gel | cpylant | Sample Prep / Library Generation | 2 | 10-30-2017 07:48 AM |
| New NextSeq: First run. A few issues. | hoytpr | Illumina/Solexa | 5 | 04-20-2017 12:57 PM |
| Variance of fragment sizes | minhduc | Sample Prep / Library Generation | 3 | 05-21-2012 12:42 AM |
 |
|
|
Thread Tools |
02-19-2019, 07:46 AM
|
#1 |
|
Junior Member
Location: Massachusetts Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 6
|
NextSeq - proportional sequencing of different fragment sizes on the same run
Hello,
I'm still learning the boundaries of the NextSeq and was wondering if anyone had experience with the following or advice where I could find more information. I am trying to optimize run space on our Illumina NextSeq and combine multiple projects including 275bp amplicons and 400bp metagenomic libraries (bp not including adaptor/barcode lengths) into one HT run. My issue is getting predictable coverage of each project; the competitive binding of smaller fragments usually means I end up with way more coverage of the small amplicons than I originally allocated space to and not enough coverage of the metagenomes. Is there a more accurate method to calculate the division of the run? Thank you |
|
|
|
| Tags |
| fragment sizes, illumina, nextseq500/550, run coverage, sequencing |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
