Review

[pschloss]

Good start

• It would have been nice to see you make a comparison that actually tested what effect using the two reference databases had on the overall classification - your analysis should have been of the phylotype-based data, not OTUs.
• Also, there's really no text describing your experiment or rationale for your comparison

[gwenyu]

Hi Pat,

Thanks a lot for your review, I just have a follow-up question- I used cluster.split command for clustering into OTUs, in my understanding, it works as- first split/cluster sequences based on classification, then under that, it's further classified into different OTUs based on similarity. So it has more resolution than phylotype, and is also kind of based on phylotyped-based clustering. With these, isn't it better to have OTU-based analysis for comparing different reference databases as it's more sensitive and may be affected more?

Thanks! Wenyu.

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 7:25 AM, Pat Schloss notifications@github.com wrote:

Good start

It would have been nice to see you make a comparison that actually tested what effect using the two reference databases had on the overall classification - your analysis should have been of the phylotype-based data, not OTUs. Also, there's really no text describing your experiment or rationale for your comparison

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub