Skip to content
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

Why did it go to Chr0? #53

Open
soungalo opened this issue Mar 25, 2020 · 3 comments
Open

Why did it go to Chr0? #53

soungalo opened this issue Mar 25, 2020 · 3 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@soungalo
Copy link

Hello,
I ran RaGOO v1.1 with default parameters:
python ragoo.py contigs.fasta ref.fasta -t10
I looked for two specific contigs in the results which I know should map one after the other to chromosome 4. I looked at the paf output:

$ grep -E 'NODE_16239_|NODE_27438_' contigs_against_ref.paf
NODE_16239_length_1784_cov_3.719491     1784    5       1775    -       4       18585056        15903632        15905402        1737      1770    60      tp:A:P  cm:i:177        s1:i:1737       s2:i:0  dv:f:0.0015     rl:i:0
NODE_27438_length_660_cov_4.593388      660     3       645     -       4       18585056        15905406        15906048        642       642     60      tp:A:P  cm:i:67 s1:i:642        s2:i:0  dv:f:0.0008     rl:i:0

However, when looking at orderings/4_orderings.txt , only the first contig is there, while the second went to Chr0. Same when I look at groupings/4_contigs.txt.
Can you help me understand why the second contig was added to Chr0? it looks like it maps pretty well to the reference.

Thanks!

@malonge
Copy link
Owner

malonge commented Mar 25, 2020

Hi there,

My guess is that the alignment was too small (< 1 kbp) to be considered. Unfortunately, this is not a tunable parameter (though it will be in v2).

If using default settings, you can manually changes this by editing line 590 in ragoo.py. Just change l to be a smaller number - perhaps 600 in your case.

Thanks

@malonge malonge added the enhancement New feature or request label Mar 25, 2020
@soungalo
Copy link
Author

Thanks for the quick reply. Indeed this worked.
I think this parameter should definitely be externalized.

@malonge
Copy link
Owner

malonge commented Mar 25, 2020

Yeah - definitely an oversight on my part. Hopefully can get v2 released sooner rather than later.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants