-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 36
Add ilHipCypr1_EAR #270
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Add ilHipCypr1_EAR #270
Conversation
|
Hi @talioto, thanks for sending the EAR of Hipparchia cypriensis. |
|
Hi @diegomics, do you agree to supervise this assembly? |
|
made comment about not tagging the Z, but I did and it's the correct one. I can update the pdf. |
|
ok |
|
|
Hi @bistace, do you agree to review this assembly? |
|
@bistace Time is out! I will look for the next reviewer on the list :) |
|
|
Hi @n-equals-one, do you agree to review this assembly? |
|
@n-equals-one Time is out! I will look for the next reviewer on the list :) |
|
|
Hi @n-equals-one, do you agree to review this assembly? |
|
@n-equals-one Time is out! I will look for the next reviewer on the list :) |
|
|
Hi @tommathers, do you agree to review this assembly? |
|
The EAR report says "post-curation" on the blobplot, but I provided the pre-curation blobplot to show the contaminants that were removed. I know it would be more work, but seeing the pre and post contamination plot together might be nice (if contamination is removed). @diegomics , can we make this flexible in the EAR? show pre, post or pre and post? |
|
@tommathers Time is out! I will look for the next reviewer on the list :) |
|
|
Hi @auryjm, do you agree to review this assembly? |
|
Yes |
|
Thanks for agreeing! |
|
Hi @talioto, The assembly is of good quality with very few gaps! I would just have assigned some small scaffolds in the shrapnel as contaminants. Here are my savestate and the list of scaffolds: |
|
out of curiosity, how did you identify the contaminants? Just by coverage? It's true, we could clean up the assembly by removing a lot of short, low coverage stuff. with telomeres on nearly every chr end and only a couple gaps, it's hard to see where these sequences would go - I asume most of it are error tips, bubbles etc from the assembly graph, not contamination. I don't have any problem removing them. |
|
OK, so I'll use your list and also apply a blobtools gc, length and ont coverage filter to remove some of the chaff. Otherwise, no other changes. |
|
Ping @diegomics, |
2 similar comments
|
Ping @diegomics, |
|
Ping @diegomics, |
|
I took a look at hap2 along with the curated (and decontaminated) hap1. the hap2 assembly is incomplete as hifiasm must have collapsed a few chromosomes. I think we'll submit the hap1 as primary and hap2 as alternate. I switched the assignment of one chromosome from hap2 to hap1 and vice versa in order to remove one of the two gaps from the assembly. here is the pretext and savestate. |
|
Hi @talioto, I am not sure that hap1 was always selected as the longest haplotype. For example, between chr17 and chr18, hap2 is the longer one. It contains a region that appears to have been collapsed and assigned to hap2. Ideally, this region should be deduplicated, but this is not possible in Pretext. In any case, I suggest using chr18 as the hap1 version. The same applies to chr25 and chr26. In addition, it seems that for some chromosomes the two haplotypes have been collapsed into a single sequence (chr31, chr40, chr41, chr46, and chr51), which suggests that they may also need to be included in hap2. The situation is a bit more complicated for chr36 and chr37, should they both have been tagged as hap1? |


Assembly review request