-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 53
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
telomeres getting lost #182
Comments
It's hard to say, in general, the default parameters set is best in most cases, I think you can try to merge the two assemblies first. Otherwise, you need to first confirm whether the corrected reads contain telomere reads, and then adjust the nextgraph parameters. |
Thanks. |
Should be in |
Thanks, found them. And yes, telomeres are missing from those corrected reads. |
I've observed the same issue in two oomycetes, most telomeres went AWOL. @JWDebler : Did you solve it eventually or did you just use another assembler? |
@webbchen I did not. My workaround is that I assemble with both Flye and NextDenovo. ND seems better at assembling big repeat rich regions which Flye breaks into separate contigs. And Flye tends to be better around chromosome ends. I then use the ND assembly to manually scaffold the Flye contigs. |
Describe the bug
I was running a comparison of current long read assemblers and realised that NextDenovo has one of the best contiguities, however, it seems to trim a lot of the telomeres.
Genome characteristics
40 mb fungal genome, haploid, about 20% repeats
Input data
Nanopore Q20+, 90x raw read coverage, read N50 ~15 kb
Config file
NextDenovo
2.5.2
Flye vs NextDenovo
This is what the 5' ends of the contigs look like assembled by Flye 2.9.2 vs NextDenovo 2.5.2
Are there any parameters that can be tuned to avoid the loss and following manual curation of chromosome ends?
Cheers,
Johannes
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: