Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

weird choice of "best assembly" #285

Open
jflot opened this issue Jan 26, 2022 · 3 comments
Open

weird choice of "best assembly" #285

jflot opened this issue Jan 26, 2022 · 3 comments

Comments

@jflot
Copy link

jflot commented Jan 26, 2022

image

Here for this assembly although the score does increase with each increase of K the choice made seems particularly poor... Maybe the way the score is calculated is not suited to this type of situation?
@rrwick
Copy link
Owner

rrwick commented Jan 28, 2022

Unicycler chooses the 'best' assembly using contig count and dead end count, so I see why it made the choice it did. I don't, however, understand what's going on with SPAdes! I.e. why do k-mers 63+ result in such small assemblies?

If this is with the current version of Unicycler (v0.5.0), the raw SPAdes graphs should be in the output (prefixed with 001). They might shed some light on this. My hunch is that there is something weird/wrong with this read set - contamination maybe? But I don't know!

Ryan

@tamascogustavo
Copy link

I am facing the same issue.
Final assembly selected by Unicycler is quite small (~300K).

Is there a way to use other metrics to select the best assembly?

@asl
Copy link

asl commented Oct 18, 2022

I don't, however, understand what's going on with SPAdes! I.e. why do k-mers 63+ result in such small assemblies?

The answer is quite simple. Likely the input reads are only 75 bp long. So, after half of the read length the graph is just a pile of barely connected reads that are removed by the graph simplification algorithms.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants