Tweet
Anyone have an expert opinion to share on the pros and cons of using CLC Genomics Workbench for de novo transcriptome assembly from 454 and Illumina paired end reads and mapping of Illumina reads to the assembly for digital expression values? I know that CLC uses RPKM (reads per kilobase of transcript per million mapped reads), which is not advantageous over FPKM, due to the potential for skewed data resulting from poor quality in read pairs. Any advice/opinions would be great.
-
-
We do use CLC a lot for de novo assembly of 454 data. We even tested it against other assemblers and the results are published here. Short version is, that CLC and TGICL show the best assembly quality, but where TGICL takes days to weeks for assembly CLC is finished within minutes. Big "pro" for CLC here.Originally posted by JQH View Post
A "con" surely is, that CLC remains a black box, you can't really tell what it does in detail.
I personally prefer to have the mapping under my control, that's why I never use CLC for it. Instead I usually go for a very traditional approach with BLAST/BLAT and homemade perl scripts.Originally posted by JQH View Post
Cheers,
Simon
-
Genomics studies in neuroscience face a special challenge due to the brain’s complexity and scarcity of samples. Mapping changes in cell type and state using conventional next-generation sequencing methods remains challenging. Advances in technologies like single-cell sequencing, spatial transcriptomics, and long-read sequencing have opened the door to deeper studies of the brain and diseases like Alzheimer’s, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), and schizophrenia.
...Yesterday, 11:10 AM -
Cancer survival rates have significantly increased in the last few decades in the United States, reaching a combined 70% 5-year survival rate by 2021. Behind this number, there are years of research to find new therapies, drug targets, and early detection methods. But there is one core challenge that keeps slowing down these advances, and it’s about drug resistance.
There is no single reason why many patients don’t respond to treatment as expected. Cancer is...07-08-2026, 05:17 AM -
Love this - good data definitely starts from good input, and poor input can only give relatively poor data. I particularly like the mention of Nanodrop/absorbance based methods for quantification. It's such a toss up if you'll get an accurate reading or what amounts to a randomly generated number, and a lot of library/sequencing related issues can be traced back to poor quant.07-01-2026, 11:43 AM
Comment