-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 179
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Placement of reads from orphan contigs #1661
Comments
The original incorrect placement was
My interpretation of that:
In particular, this found only one possible place to put the orphan, and so put it at that one (incorrect) place. The fixed version now reports multiple possible placements, and will thus put each read where it thinks it best fits (not shown in the logging).
|
There's still some weirdness for multiply placed orphans I think:
The reads end up at positions
However, that placement of read 29558 was supposed to be subsumed by the better version that it tested (100% length vs 70% length). The latter placement is clearly better too:
So how does it end up being placed with a 10% placement anyway? |
Just picks first one at equal coverage, I suggest orphans should be required to fully place their reads otherwise they're bubbles not orphans. There is also lots of code duplication with these checks, present in at least bogart/AS_BAT_MergeOrphans.C, bogart/AS_BAT_AssemblyGraph.C, and bogart/AS_BAT_PlaceContains.C, would be good to refactor. |
Lastly, what is causing these orphans to arise. We have orphans at 100% identity and 100% covered by a larger tig. Example:
Why weren't these reads in the path originally? |
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: