EAGER reports wrong "# of Raw Reads prior Clip & Merge (C&M)” number (lower than overall, but more than any single lane alone) reported in the report-files when used with several lanes of paired end data. Downstream analysis (BWA…) seem to be unaffected.
FastQC for the first lane (R1+R2) = 454,533,844 (which is the number EAGER states, but this is not correct given that we have 8x (R1+R2) = something much higher (!).
EAGER reports wrong "# of Raw Reads prior Clip & Merge (C&M)” number (lower than overall, but more than any single lane alone) reported in the report-files when used with several lanes of paired end data. Downstream analysis (BWA…) seem to be unaffected.
FastQC for the first lane (R1+R2) = 454,533,844 (which is the number EAGER states, but this is not correct given that we have 8x (R1+R2) = something much higher (!).