Thank you for the prompt reply! I ran FASTQC on the fastq files and it appears that there were no adapter sequences detected in the files.
if it finds no adapters then there are none in the read. That happens if the insert size of the DNA fragment is longer than the read length, and is often the case, so finding no adapters in the read is often expected.
Let me know if this sounds right: you are saying that the DNA fragment (the part we are trying to sequence) is longer then the read length (150bp based on the FASTQC report) we will not see the adapter (which is attached to the flow cell and covalently bonded to the DNA fragment).
In this case, based on the given data, is it correct that I should not need to use cutadapt to trim adapters (as there appear to be none in the dataset)?
Here is an example of the CutAdapt script I was given to run, and it's output for one of the sequences. Based on the --overlap=3 flag, I think this is overly permissive and resulting in the actual sample being truncated. Would you agree with that assessment?
Programs like
fastp(LINK) are able to automatically identify adapter sequences. If you have a collaboration with the lab that generated the data then write to them and ask about the protocol/kit that was used for the preparation of the libraries. That should remove any ambiguity.As ATPoint noted below your data may have already been cleaned by the submitters (if all sequences are not the same length then almost certainly that is the case).
Even if there is some residual primer sequences are remaining they will be "soft-clipped" by aligner you will use in next step.