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
I do think it's good to trim adapter sequences, especially in 3-base context like EM-seq, since reads with adapter still present will align and produce artifacts. I also think it's good to eliminate poly-G regions of reads (as we do automatically) since they also can align to a few human genomic loci that are poly-C.
Unless there is a problem with the run, I see no benefit to trimming sequences either to account for end-repair methylation erasure or instrument-estimated lower quality. We do "trim" reads by default during methylation calling to account for end-repair effects, but these bases are useful for alignment purposes.
reacted with thumbs up emoji reacted with thumbs down emoji reacted with laugh emoji reacted with hooray emoji reacted with confused emoji reacted with heart emoji reacted with rocket emoji reacted with eyes emoji
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
In issue #47 , @abdeljalil-senhaji asks about whether it's a good idea to clip reads.
I do think it's good to trim adapter sequences, especially in 3-base context like EM-seq, since reads with adapter still present will align and produce artifacts. I also think it's good to eliminate poly-G regions of reads (as we do automatically) since they also can align to a few human genomic loci that are poly-C.
Unless there is a problem with the run, I see no benefit to trimming sequences either to account for end-repair methylation erasure or instrument-estimated lower quality. We do "trim" reads by default during methylation calling to account for end-repair effects, but these bases are useful for alignment purposes.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions