Hello,
Our objective is to generate a de novo assembly of the samples of our population. To do this we want to used ONT Simplex data, which was generated with a different objective (SV detection), using the library prep. guidelines suited for SV detection:
Elimination of short DNA fragments using SFE kit
Fragmentation of DNA using G-Tubes
This leads to us to the following R10 data:
121 Gb
N50 = 13 Kb
47X coverage (genome size 2.6 Gb)
Of course, due to the use of SFE+G-Tubes, we lack longer read outliers. I understand not having these might complicate _de novo_ assembly, however we thought that having 99% coverage of the reference genome and a good depth would overcome this limitation.
Anyway, this is the pipeline that I have used for the _de novo_ assembly:
Base-calling using using sup model
Elimination reads with a length shorter than 5Kb and Q less than 15
hifiasmto generate the contig-level aseembly
When I look at the QC of the contig-level assembly I see that we have short contigs:
N50: 250 Kb
Completeness 99% (but 55% of duplicated genes)
Long-read polishing
Short-read polishing
Reference-based scaffolding
When I do the reference-based scaffolding is where I have problems. While the reference chromosomes are close to 100% covered, our de novo chromosomes are too large. To the point that the largest chromosome is 30% longer than reference. Of course this is biologically false. It looks like the short contigs lead to overlaps that cannot be resolved, leading to a slow and steady elongation of the chromosome. See the attached pictures:



I was wondering if there is any chance to modify the parameters of hifiasm to improve this situation, or if anyone here might know any additional step that might fix this issue.
Sorry for the long message,
Ferran.
0 answers
No answers yet.
Log in to answer this question.
looks your images are missing from your post?
have a look at this post to see how to achieve adding images:
How to add images to a Biostars post
Fixed, thank you.
Can you perhaps also add in some more actual commands you used for those steps? so the exact commandline you used to run hifiasm etc.
Use the '101001' button above the post window to code-format them
thanks
Few questions/comments
-I think an important piece of information would be if your sample is heterozygous? considering 55% of your BUSCOs are duplicated, it might clarify whether this is biological, i.e. phasing during assembly, or an artifact on the assembly process.
-Is your reference assembly to be trusted? T2T? no collapsing of repetitive regions? no scaffolding?
-These regions that appear to be duplicated, do they contain repeat content?
-If I was in your position, I would also run an assembly on Flye as well and compare the quality.