Why BUSCO reports fewer genes after RaGOO?
See original GitHub issueHey there!
I used:
python3 ragoo.py contigs.fasta reference.fasta
Then, surprisingly BUSCO reported fewer genes after RaGOO (Table). One complete gene and 4 fragmented genes lost 😦 .
Table.
Genes Contigs Contigs&RaGOO
Complete sing 4380 4379
Complete dupl 7 7
Fragmented 13 9
Missing 15 20
Is that because of contig orienting & ordering? Or another reason? How to set RaGOO parameters to save these genes? Thanks in advance!
Cheers, Ural
Issue Analytics
- State:
- Created 3 years ago
- Comments:5 (2 by maintainers)
Top Results From Across the Web
RaGOO: fast and accurate reference-guided scaffolding of ...
Here, we introduce RaGOO, an open-source method which utilizes Minimap2 [24] alignments to a closely related reference genome to quickly ...
Read more >BUSCO Update: Novel and Streamlined Workflows along with ...
A newly introduced genome workflow increases the efficiency and runtimes especially on large eukaryotic genomes. BUSCO is the only tool capable ...
Read more >Towards complete and error-free genome assemblies of all ...
After we applied these tools, the primary assembly sizes and the k-mer and BUSCO gene duplication rates were all reduced, and their correlations ......
Read more >The changing face of genome assemblies: Guidance on ...
Elevated levels of BUSCO duplicates may alternatively report a contribution of whole genome duplication to the lineage, as is particularly ...
Read more >Whole genome assembly and annotation of the lucerne weevil ...
(BUSCO) scores are above 96% for single-copy orthologs derived from eukaryotes, ... fewer than those reported in other coleopteran genomes, ...
Read more >Top Related Medium Post
No results found
Top Related StackOverflow Question
No results found
Troubleshoot Live Code
Lightrun enables developers to add logs, metrics and snapshots to live code - no restarts or redeploys required.
Start FreeTop Related Reddit Thread
No results found
Top Related Hackernoon Post
No results found
Top Related Tweet
No results found
Top Related Dev.to Post
No results found
Top Related Hashnode Post
No results found
Top GitHub Comments
Yes, Ive noticed this too that the BUSCO output is not completely stable in that reordering the contigs in a fasta file (but not changing the sequence at all) can change the scores a bit. I dont have a deep understanding of it other than there must be some heuristics involved that are sensitive to how the data are internally batched
Mike
On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 11:28 AM Michael Alonge notifications@github.com wrote:
Thank you!