You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Hello! thank you for developing NextDenovo, it is working perfectly for me.
I am writing to ask you a question about the parameters for the run.
I am working with ONT reads, mostly obtained using the V14 chemistry of the R10.4.1 flowcells. The median quality of the reads is 20, and there is a high proportion of ultra long reads with lengths above 100Kbp, up to 800Kbp.
I also have other datasets obtained with the previous ONT flowcells that have a higher error rate. When I compare the results of the assemblies obtained with both technologies (but similar coverages), I find higher N50s for the older flowcells (12Mb vs. 6 Mb).
I know this could be coincidental, but I was wondering if there is any parameter that I could modify to account for the lower error rate or larger reads, and therefore improve assembly?
Thank you in advance!
Mylena
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
You could try increasing the value of -k -w in minimap2_options_raw and minimap2_options_cns, I'm not sure if that will improve the assembly, but it will definitely introduce the running time.
Hello! thank you for developing NextDenovo, it is working perfectly for me.
I am writing to ask you a question about the parameters for the run.
I am working with ONT reads, mostly obtained using the V14 chemistry of the R10.4.1 flowcells. The median quality of the reads is 20, and there is a high proportion of ultra long reads with lengths above 100Kbp, up to 800Kbp.
I also have other datasets obtained with the previous ONT flowcells that have a higher error rate. When I compare the results of the assemblies obtained with both technologies (but similar coverages), I find higher N50s for the older flowcells (12Mb vs. 6 Mb).
I know this could be coincidental, but I was wondering if there is any parameter that I could modify to account for the lower error rate or larger reads, and therefore improve assembly?
Thank you in advance!
Mylena
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: