Question about the read length distribution for subtype graphs #79
Comments
|
Could you show your results table, too? There is a bugfix between those two commits where previously the plot didn't account for |
|
I see that there is an update 2 days ago. I will re-run the analysis and if I have the same problem, I will get back to you. |
|
I tried the new update (commit 913a785) on the same dataset and this is the error that is generated. |
|
Is this PacBio sequencing data? What do the sequencing read IDs in the BAM/SAM/FASTQ look like? |
No, the data is from a nanopore sequencing run. This is an example of what the read ID looks like in the BAM file : f86ee2ba-e497-488d-8302-bc8e32926523 |
|
OK, in that case laava's read ID regex, automatic sequencing run ID extraction, and Does that read ID have any internal structure to it, e.g. does each block separated by |
No, they don't signify anything. It is just the reads are randomly assigned an ID. |
|
I tested the new update 16c61dc and the graph is still not reflecting the reality of the results table. |
|
Here is the results table and here is the graph: |
The previous version of the pipeline that I was using is 79eaf54 (24/10/2024) and I pulled the updated version of the pipeline e425de0 (29/01/2025). I re-run an analysis on a ssAAV dataset to compare the results. The results were the same between both versions of the pipeline (i.e. the same proportions of reads and percentage were found for each subtype). However, with the update of the read length distribution graph does not reflect the reality of the results table.
PREVIOUS VERSION
CURRENT Version
The results table showed that there wasn't a large no. reads attributed to the full length ssAAV. However, looking at the current version graph it would appear as if the full length ssAAV very more present.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: