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
I am currently working with NovaSeq data, using the modified loess for monotonicity, and trimmed according to what is discussed in the tutorial (trimleft for primers, kept maximum sequence length for trunLen).
I ran DADA2, removed chimeras, kept only ASV's classified as "Bacteria" and also removed unclassified ASVs at the Phylum level. The final distribution of ASVs length is the following:
161nt (V3) + 291nt (V4) = 452nt
452nt - (17 primer fwd + 20 primer rev) = 415nt
186nt (V3) + 291nt (V4) = 477nt
477nt - (17 primer fwd + 20 primer rev) = 440nt
So, the values I get are around ~5nt of difference from the "theoretical" values. If my math is correct, then my results match with the expectation, correct? I am still puzzled with the number of intermediate values...
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi everyone,
I am currently working with NovaSeq data, using the modified loess for monotonicity, and trimmed according to what is discussed in the tutorial (
trimleft
for primers, kept maximum sequence length fortrunLen
).I ran DADA2, removed chimeras, kept only ASV's classified as "Bacteria" and also removed unclassified ASVs at the Phylum level. The final distribution of ASVs length is the following:
According to this previous issue (#896 (comment)) and references such as this: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5785224/, I can safely conclude variation is expected, in a binomial fashion.
Doing some "crude" math, we get:
161nt (V3) + 291nt (V4) = 452nt
452nt - (17 primer fwd + 20 primer rev) = 415nt
186nt (V3) + 291nt (V4) = 477nt
477nt - (17 primer fwd + 20 primer rev) = 440nt
So, the values I get are around ~5nt of difference from the "theoretical" values. If my math is correct, then my results match with the expectation, correct? I am still puzzled with the number of intermediate values...
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: