Initially, I mapped the small size micromonas metaT and metaG reads to the references and saw very different/inconsistent results. However, these inconsistencies were different than the ones in phaeo.
Looking at the mapping rates for micro was difficult to visualize because of how small they were, so I blew them up x100 to make them more visible
I then ran some different comparison tools to investigate the issue further, such as looking at the ANI and species tree
Additionally, I examined the completeness of the references with BUSCO
I then looked to plot the mapping rates for MetaT and metaG for both phaeo and micromonas. The base plots see very little correlation, so I log transformed them and colored by area to see if that would untangle.
Initially, I mapped the small size micromonas metaT and metaG reads to the references and saw very different/inconsistent results. However, these inconsistencies were different than the ones in phaeo.
Looking at the mapping rates for micro was difficult to visualize because of how small they were, so I blew them up x100 to make them more visible
I then ran some different comparison tools to investigate the issue further, such as looking at the ANI and species tree
Additionally, I examined the completeness of the references with BUSCO
I then looked to plot the mapping rates for MetaT and metaG for both phaeo and micromonas. The base plots see very little correlation, so I log transformed them and colored by area to see if that would untangle.
From here: