You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Been thinking about our recent coassemblies with the pyranese lizards (which showed that coassembling with samples that are too different reduced preformance). I came across this idea today when skimming the EMP500 protocol (https://github.com/biocore/emp/blob/master/methods/methods_release2.md):
Running pairwise MASH on the metagenomic reads of all samples, then selecting samples for coassembly based on a minimum MASH distance.
Pretty nifty idea, which could give us a more quantifiable justification for which samples we choose to coassemble together.
They choose MASH distances < 0.1 for coassembly, but this could be explored a bit more.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Been thinking about our recent coassemblies with the pyranese lizards (which showed that coassembling with samples that are too different reduced preformance). I came across this idea today when skimming the EMP500 protocol (https://github.com/biocore/emp/blob/master/methods/methods_release2.md):
Running pairwise MASH on the metagenomic reads of all samples, then selecting samples for coassembly based on a minimum MASH distance.
Pretty nifty idea, which could give us a more quantifiable justification for which samples we choose to coassemble together.
They choose MASH distances < 0.1 for coassembly, but this could be explored a bit more.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: