I'm currently working with Yahs and ONT PoreC data to scaffold my plant genome (~800 Mb). I've tried two different protocols (3 libraries each with concatenated .bed files) for PoreC analysis resulting in:
protocol A) 19.2 M paired reads, 2.5 M intra, 1.67 M inter (Read N50 ~1 kb)
protocol B) 16.8 M paired reads, 5.9 M intra, 10.8 M inter (Read N50 ~ 3.3 kb)
Then I've concatenate all .bed files and running yahs resulting in
According to Juicebox results and assembly statistics, combining the different runs gives more noisy and missassembled results than using only one data set. I wonder if there could be a problem with long and short distance contacts or with the ratios between inter/intra/read pairs between the datasets? Or should the two protocols be run consecutively? Probably the first dataset (protocol A) has a negative impact?
Hi I am also woking on PORE-C data, could you please tell me what methods now you use to analyze the pore-c data? Is yahs better than any other methods?
Hi Zhou,
I'm currently working with Yahs and ONT PoreC data to scaffold my plant genome (~800 Mb). I've tried two different protocols (3 libraries each with concatenated .bed files) for PoreC analysis resulting in:
protocol A) 19.2 M paired reads, 2.5 M intra, 1.67 M inter (Read N50 ~1 kb)
protocol B) 16.8 M paired reads, 5.9 M intra, 10.8 M inter (Read N50 ~ 3.3 kb)
Then I've concatenate all .bed files and running yahs resulting in
According to Juicebox results and assembly statistics, combining the different runs gives more noisy and missassembled results than using only one data set. I wonder if there could be a problem with long and short distance contacts or with the ratios between inter/intra/read pairs between the datasets? Or should the two protocols be run consecutively? Probably the first dataset (protocol A) has a negative impact?
Best Freya