Hi all,
I read in a paper (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25881092) that the authors assessed the sequencing bias via detecting random distribution of reads in ORF from the assembled transcripts to evaluate the assembly quality. Could anybody please let me know how I can do such a assessment?
Thanks
1 answer
You are referring to Figure 1b? http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2164/16/298/figure/F1
This is just the number of reads over the relative read length. Divide each predicted ORF into 10 equally sized bins, count the reads in the bin, and sum up the bins. They use this only to show that there is no positional bias in ORF coverage.
Well, that's quite easy to build in R, what's your input data? You need to map back reads to contigs in BAM/SAM format, ORF coordinates on contigs in GFF format. If you want help with your task you need to post example data and what you have tried already.
With respect to how good this is to evaluate an assembly, I think it doesn't show much at all.
Log in to answer this question.
-
Finding the transcript direction using stranded-specific library
written by seta
-
evaluation of accuracy and sensitivity of the de novo transcriptome assembly
written by seta
-
Is there any way to extract longest ORF from blastx output?
written by sohra •
-
KEGG annotation results and transcriptome assembly quality
written by seta
-
How to remove poly T in RNA-sequencing data
written by seta
-
Is there any script to select longest ORF instead longest transcript from all assembled transcripts…
written by seta
-
Script to assess the transcriptome assembly quality in terms of blastx and tblasn results?
written by seta
-
The origin of transcripts with putative frameshift in the de novo assembled transcriptome?
written by seta
-
why cd-hit-est tool could not recognize identical contigs in the assembled transcriptome input file?
written by seta
-
Alternative way for annotation of assembled transcriptome using BLASTX
written by seta
you need to link 'a paper', while waiting for answers read the Methods section of the paper.
Of course, I read material section, but has not been mentioned.