Bioinformatics Asked on February 19, 2021
I am trying to assemble the run SRR12196449 with SPAdes
. The description of their project is:
This project expected to standardize a method for amplification and
sequencing of FIV genome in a simple way, allowing a broader analysis
to increase the knowledge on the biology and evolution of the virus
and virus-host interaction.
This is from School of Veterinary Medicine; University of Sao Paulo.
I have tried in three ways:
SPAdes-3.14.0/spades.py –only-assembler -s sra_data.fa -o raw-fiv1
SPAdes-3.14.0/spades.py –12 sra_data.fastq.gz -o raw-fiv1-b
SPAdes-3.14.0/spades.py –12 SRR12196449.fastq -o raw-fiv1-c
In the third case I get a very bad assembly, likely because it needs trimming. In the two former cases, I get an assembly with a max contig length of around 4k-5k bps. But when I use quast
to evaluate the assembly I obtain a largest alignment of ~500bps. I use this as reference.
Furthermore, if make a blast search it finds that the 4k-5k contig matches other FIV sequences at ~90% . In between these other sequences, there is at least one (MF370550.1) submitted by the University of Sao Paulo (likely another run from another sample in the same project).
On the other hand, if I assemble the run using another software I obtain a contig that is an almost perfect match to my reference sequence (~99%).
I have a few questions.
SPAdes
correctly? Is there a better way to use it?SPAdes
contigs are indeed sequences that someone got using SPAdes
and that’s why these match (not because these are correct)?EDIT:
Some clarifications regarding some comments from @MaximilianPress. I can confirm that I used the same reference genome in both cases. I used that command to get the quast results:
quast-5.0.2/quast.py -r raw-fiv1/sequence.fasta SPAdes-3.14.0/raw-fiv1/contigs.fasta
The other assembler is an overlap-layout-consensus algorithm that I implemented. The methodology is similar: I use exactly the same input fasta file.
I have also tried using the SPAdes
–plasmid flag and that doesn’t improve much the result. Max contig length is now 3642 bps and largest alignment 737 bps, covering only 26% of the reference.
BTW, I made also tests with other virus sequences. I am just interested to know if I am using SPAdes
correctly so that I can compare the performance of my algorithm Here there is a link to additional cases with other genomes. There you can find all the data and results used (raw files, assembly results and quast results)
Another clarification: I have also got perfect assemblies using SPAdes
for other runs corresponding to other viruses… I am following exactly the same procedure in this case.
Update 2:
I looked into this a little more, with the various data sources.
This is related in part to the answer submitted by OP juanjo75es, in addition to discussion on chat. I don't entirely understand the logic, but the general thrust seems to be that SPAdes makes weird assemblies somehow.
Some notes that I made:
REFERENCE ASSEMBLIES
MN630242.1 8977 194 8964 + U11820.1 9462 575 9326 1130 8778 60 tp:A:P cm:i:116 s1:i:1125
s2:i:55 dv:f:0.1761
MN630242.1 Prodigal:2.6 CDS 253 1605 . + 0 ID=AMGANPBD_00001;inference=ab initio prediction:Prodigal:2.6;locus_tag=AMGANPBD_00001;product=hypothetical protein
MN630242.1 Prodigal:2.6 CDS 1656 4868 . + 0 ID=AMGANPBD_00002;eC_number=3.6.1.23;Name=dut;gene=dut;inference=ab initio prediction:Prodigal:2.6,similar to AA sequence:UniProtKB:Q2YRG4;locus_tag=AMGANPBD_00002;product=Deoxyuridine 5'-triphosphate nucleotidohydrolase
MN630242.1 Prodigal:2.6 CDS 4861 5616 . + 0 ID=AMGANPBD_00003;inference=ab initio prediction:Prodigal:2.6;locus_tag=AMGANPBD_00003;product=hypothetical protein
MN630242.1 Prodigal:2.6 CDS 5891 8461 . + 0 ID=AMGANPBD_00004;inference=ab initio prediction:Prodigal:2.6;locus_tag=AMGANPBD_00004;product=hypothetical protein
MN630242.1 Prodigal:2.6 CDS 8626 8790 . + 0 ID=AMGANPBD_00005;inference=ab initio prediction:Prodigal:2.6;locus_tag=AMGANPBD_00005;product=hypothetical protein
U11820.1 Prodigal:2.6 CDS 634 1983 . + 0 ID=EANIPDKN_00001;inference=ab initio prediction:Prodigal:2.6;locus_tag=EANIPDKN_00001;product=hypothetical protein
U11820.1 Prodigal:2.6 CDS 1995 5246 . + 0 ID=EANIPDKN_00002;eC_number=3.6.1.23;Name=dut;gene=dut;inference=ab initio prediction:Prodigal:2.6,similar to AA sequence:UniProtKB:Q2YRG4;locus_tag=EANIPDKN_00002;product=Deoxyuridine 5'-triphosphate nucleotidohydrolase
U11820.1 Prodigal:2.6 CDS 5239 5994 . + 0 ID=EANIPDKN_00003;inference=ab initio prediction:Prodigal:2.6;locus_tag=EANIPDKN_00003;product=hypothetical protein
U11820.1 Prodigal:2.6 CDS 6269 8830 . + 0 ID=EANIPDKN_00004;inference=ab initio prediction:Prodigal:2.6;locus_tag=EANIPDKN_00004;product=hypothetical protein
U11820.1 Prodigal:2.6 CDS 8904 9152 . + 0 ID=EANIPDKN_00005;inference=ab initio prediction:Prodigal:2.6;locus_tag=EANIPDKN_00005;product=hypothetical protein
I can share FAA files of the proteins if needed.
READ ASSEMBLY
I also assembled the indicated reads using SPAdes. For reference it is a ~9Kbp virus, but this is a 4.3Mbp assembly. There is a lot of non-virus sequence in there. The second-largest contig is a shuttle vector. the third-largest contig is cat (host). Many more are cat, so I think it's pretty cat-oriented. The original authors used CLC workbench, so I guess that just worked a lot better in this instance, even in the presence of all the contamination. Unclear why, it appears that CLC works similarly to OP's assembly tool.
I aligned these to MN630242.1 with minimap2. If I understand OP, they are unhappy about the mapping of these contigs to this genome reference. The identities are mostly high (though there is indeed some oddness with the largest contig, which only finds very low coverage- at the same time that there are overlapping contigs with very high ID?), and they cover the entire reference genome:
MN630242.1 8977 2155 3199 - NODE_14_length_1054_cov_3786.620280 1054 2 1046 1021 1044 60 tp:A:P cm:i:189 s1:i:1021 s2:i:378 dv:f:0.0031
MN630242.1 8977 7893 8626 - NODE_25_length_743_cov_3814.258117 743 8 739 713 733 60 tp:A:P cm:i:129 s1:i:713 s2:i:318 dv:f:0.0045
MN630242.1 8977 72 4904 - NODE_1_length_4942_cov_25.814123 4942 34 4863 628 4832 41 tp:A:P cm:i:7s1:i:628 s2:i:512 dv:f:0.1703
MN630242.1 8977 3376 3897 + NODE_39_length_526_cov_5254.155388 526 3 524 512 521 0 tp:A:S cm:i:8s1:i:512 dv:f:0.0023
MN630242.1 8977 6270 6673 + NODE_82_length_409_cov_1.744681 409 3 406 357 403 0 tp:A:P cm:i:53 s1:i:357 s2:i:351 dv:f:0.0185
MN630242.1 8977 6852 7223 - NODE_87_length_381_cov_23.334646 381 6 376 355 371 2 tp:A:P cm:i:5s1:i:355 s2:i:351 dv:f:0.0079
MN630242.1 8977 6187 6558 - NODE_88_length_380_cov_2338.675889 380 7 378 351 371 0 tp:A:S cm:i:5s1:i:351 dv:f:0.0085
MN630242.1 8977 6852 7308 + NODE_56_length_471_cov_0.933140 471 15 471 351 456 0 tp:A:S cm:i:43 s1:i:351 dv:f:0.0397
MN630242.1 8977 7332 7707 + NODE_86_length_389_cov_3506.202290 389 5 380 334 375 17 tp:A:P cm:i:5s1:i:334 s2:i:309 dv:f:0.0111
MN630242.1 8977 5181 5568 - NODE_60_length_464_cov_1.005935 464 50 437 314 387 17 tp:A:P cm:i:41 s1:i:314 s2:i:282 dv:f:0.0357
MN630242.1 8977 7277 7707 + NODE_76_length_438_cov_0.919614 438 5 435 309 430 0 tp:A:S cm:i:40 s1:i:309 dv:f:0.0437
MN630242.1 8977 6953 7285 + NODE_94_length_345_cov_2.903670 345 8 340 301 332 0 tp:A:S cm:i:50 s1:i:301 dv:f:0.0110
MN630242.1 8977 5744 6056 - NODE_113_length_316_cov_2.169312 316 4 316 289 312 35 tp:A:P cm:i:4s1:i:289 s2:i:244 dv:f:0.0096
MN630242.1 8977 5615 5927 + NODE_108_length_322_cov_1103.400000 322 6 318 283 312 58 tp:A:P cm:i:4s1:i:283 s2:i:209 dv:f:0.0143
MN630242.1 8977 6543 6813 - NODE_147_length_279_cov_2592.519737 279 8 278 261 270 21 tp:A:P cm:i:4s1:i:261 s2:i:236 dv:f:0.0032
MN630242.1 8977 8544 8872 + NODE_100_length_333_cov_2259.189320 333 1 329 252 328 0 tp:A:P cm:i:3s1:i:252 s2:i:245 dv:f:0.0318
MN630242.1 8977 7601 7853 - NODE_200_length_255_cov_25.125000 255 0 252 250 252 12 tp:A:P cm:i:3s1:i:250 s2:i:236 dv:f:0.0017
MN630242.1 8977 6648 6968 - NODE_106_length_324_cov_2.538071 324 4 324 248 320 0 tp:A:P cm:i:3s1:i:248 s2:i:248 dv:f:0.0303
MN630242.1 8977 5940 6193 - NODE_162_length_266_cov_1809.287770 266 6 259 246 253 5 tp:A:P cm:i:4s1:i:246 s2:i:240 dv:f:0.0033
MN630242.1 8977 5416 5664 - NODE_264_length_255_cov_9.531250 255 5 253 243 248 0 tp:A:P cm:i:4s1:i:243 s2:i:242 dv:f:0.0033
MN630242.1 8977 7221 7466 - NODE_247_length_255_cov_12.539062 255 1 246 241 245 0 tp:A:P cm:i:4s1:i:241 s2:i:241 dv:f:0.0032
MN630242.1 8977 4830 5071 - NODE_1121_length_245_cov_11.711864 245 4 245 239 241 0 tp:A:P cm:i:4s1:i:239 s2:i:235 dv:f:0.0042
MN630242.1 8977 7769 8013 + NODE_677_length_251_cov_3.951613 251 6 249 238 244 7 tp:A:P cm:i:4s1:i:238 s2:i:230 dv:f:0.0075
MN630242.1 8977 4901 5148 + NODE_270_length_255_cov_8.726562 255 8 255 238 247 0 tp:A:P cm:i:4s1:i:238 s2:i:234 dv:f:0.0073
MN630242.1 8977 8705 8948 - NODE_382_length_254_cov_5.763780 254 7 250 234 243 15 tp:A:P cm:i:4s1:i:234 s2:i:217 dv:f:0.0062
MN630242.1 8977 6065 6307 + NODE_410_length_254_cov_3.488189 254 1 243 227 242 10 tp:A:P cm:i:3s1:i:227 s2:i:210 dv:f:0.0122
MN630242.1 8977 5062 5239 - NODE_7003_length_180_cov_9.207547 180 3 180 172 177 17 tp:A:P cm:i:2s1:i:172 s2:i:157 dv:f:0.0066
MN630242.1 8977 11 136 + NODE_21321_length_128_cov_1195.000000 128 2 127 125 125 3 tp:A:P cm:i:2s1:i:125 s2:i:123 dv:f:0
Only a (relatively) few contigs align well (figure), as might be expected with heavy contamination, and of those some are overlapping:
To look into the odd behavior of the biggest contig, I ran prokka on it too and found the expected genes for its position, especially the largest gene in the virus, dut
(Deoxyuridine 5'-triphosphate nucleotidohydrolase). I then took the protein sequences of the 3 assemblies and aligned them with clustalo. They're all quite similar:
CLUSTAL O(1.2.4) multiple sequence alignment
NODE1_KJHFFCBH_00001 ------MEKRPEIQIFVNGHPIKFLLDTGADITILNRKEFIIGNSIENGKQNMIGVGGGK
MN630242_AMGANPBD_00002 -------------MIFVNGYPIKFLLDTGADITILNRRDFQVKNSIENGRQNMIGVGGGK
U11820.1_EANIPDKN_00002 MGTTTTLERRLEIQIFVNGHPIKFLLDTGADITILNRKDFQIGNSIENGKQNMIGVGGGK
*****:*****************::* : ******:**********
NODE1_KJHFFCBH_00001 RGTNYINVHLEIRDENYKTQCIFGNVCVLEDNSLIQPLLGRDNMIKFNIRLVMAQISEKI
MN630242_AMGANPBD_00002 RGTNYTNVHLEIRDENYKTQCIFGNVCVLEDNSLIQPLLGRDNMIKFNIRLVMAQISDKI
U11820.1_EANIPDKN_00002 RGTNYINVHLEIRDENYRMQCIFGNVCVLEDNSLIQPLLGRDNMIKFNIRLVMAQISEKI
***** ***********: **************************************:**
NODE1_KJHFFCBH_00001 PIVKVRMKDPTQGPQVKQWPLSNEKIEALTEIVERLEQEGKVKRADPNNPWNTPVFAIKK
MN630242_AMGANPBD_00002 PIVKVKMKDPNKGPQIKQWPLSNEKIEALTEIVERLEKEGKVKRADPNNPWNTPVFAIKK
U11820.1_EANIPDKN_00002 PIVKVRMRDPIQGPQVKQWPLSNEKIEALTDIVERLESEGKVKRADPNNPWNTPVFAIKK
*****:*:** :***:**************:******.**********************
NODE1_KJHFFCBH_00001 KSGKWRMLIDFRVLNKLTDKGAEVQLGLPHPAGLQWKKQVTVLDIGDAYFTIPLDPDYAP
MN630242_AMGANPBD_00002 KSGKWRMLIDFRELNKLTEKGAEVQLGLPHPAGLQMKKQVTVLDIGDAYFTIPLDPDYAP
U11820.1_EANIPDKN_00002 KSGKWRMLIDFRVLNKLTDKGAEVQLGLPHPAGLQMKKQVTVLDIGDAYFTIPLDPDYAP
************ *****:**************** ************************
NODE1_KJHFFCBH_00001 YTAFTLPRKNNAGPGKRYVWCSLPQGWVLSPLIYQSTLDNILQPYIKQNPELDIYQYMDD
MN630242_AMGANPBD_00002 YTAFTLPRKNNAGPGRRYIWCSLPQGWILSPLIYQSTLDNIIQPFIRQNPQLDIYQYMDD
U11820.1_EANIPDKN_00002 YTAFTLPRKNNAGPGRRYVWCSLPQGWVLSPLIYQSTLDNILQPFIKQNSELDIYQYMDD
***************:**:********:*************:**:*:** :*********
NODE1_KJHFFCBH_00001 IYIGSNLSRQEHKQKVEELRKLLLWWGFETPEDKLQEEPPYKWMGYELHPLTWSIQQKQL
MN630242_AMGANPBD_00002 IYIGSNLNKKEHKEKVGELRKLLLWWGFETPEDKLQEEPPYKWMGYELHPLTWTIQQKQL
U11820.1_EANIPDKN_00002 IYIGSNLSKKEHKQKVEELRKLLLWWGFETPEDKLQEEPPYKWMGYELHPLTWSIQQKQL
*******.::***:** ************************************:******
NODE1_KJHFFCBH_00001 EIPERPTLNDLQKLAGKINWASQTIPKLSIKALTHMMRGDQKLDSIREWTEEAKKEVQKA
MN630242_AMGANPBD_00002 DIPEQPTLNELQKLAGKINWASQAIPDLSIKALTNMMRGNQNLNSIREWTKEARLEVQKA
U11820.1_EANIPDKN_00002 EIPERPTLNELQKLAGKINWASQTIPDLSIKELTNMMRGDQKLDSIREWTVEAKREVQKA
:***:****:*************:**.**** **:****:*:*:****** **: *****
NODE1_KJHFFCBH_00001 KEAIEKQAQLYYYDPNRELYAKISLVGPHQLCYQVYHKNPEQILWYGKMNRQKKRAENTC
MN630242_AMGANPBD_00002 KKAIEGQVQLGYYDPSKELYAKLSLVGPHQISYQVYQRNPERILWYGKMSRQKKKAENTC
U11820.1_EANIPDKN_00002 KEAIEKQAQLNYYDPNRGLYAKLSLVGPHQICYQVYQKNPEHILWYGKMNRQKKKAENTC
*:*** *.** ****.: ****:*******:.****::***:*******.****:*****
NODE1_KJHFFCBH_00001 DIALRACYKIREESIVRIGKEPVYEIPASREAWESNIIRSPYLKASPPEVEFIHAALNIK
MN630242_AMGANPBD_00002 DIALRACYKIREESIIRIGKEPKYEIPTSREAWESNLINSPYLKAPPPEVEYIHAALNIK
U11820.1_EANIPDKN_00002 DIALRACYKIREESIIRIGKEPMYEIPASREAWESNLIRSPYLKAPPPEVEFIHAALSIK
***************:****** ****:********:*.****** *****:*****.**
NODE1_KJHFFCBH_00001 RALSMVQEVPILGAETWYIDGGRRQGKAARAAYWTNTGRWQVMEIEGSNQKAEVQALLMA
MN630242_AMGANPBD_00002 RALSMIKDAPILGAETWYIDGGRKLGKAAKAAYWTDTGKWQVMELEGSNQKAEIQALLLA
U11820.1_EANIPDKN_00002 RALSMIQDAPITGAETWYIDGSRKQGKAARAAYWTDTGKWQIMEIEGSNQKAEVQALLLA
*****:::.** *********.*: ****:*****:**:**:**:********:****:*
NODE1_KJHFFCBH_00001 LKEGPEEMNIITDSQYILNIMNQQPDLMEGIWQEVLEEMEKKIAIFIDWVPGHKGIPGNE
MN630242_AMGANPBD_00002 LKAGPEEMNIITDSQYVINIILQQPDMMEGIWQEVLEELEKKTAIFIDWVPGHKGIPGNE
U11820.1_EANIPDKN_00002 LKAGSEEMNIITDSQYILNIINQQPDLMEGLWQEVLEEMEKKIAIFIDWVPGHKGIPGNE
** * ***********::**: ****:***:*******:*** *****************
NODE1_KJHFFCBH_00001 EVDKLCQTMMIIEGDGILNKRPEDAGYDLLAAQEIHILPGEVRIVPTRTRIMLPKGYWGL
MN630242_AMGANPBD_00002 EVDKLCQTMMIIEGDGILDKRSEDAGYDLLAAKEMHLLPGEVKVIPTGVKIMLPKGYWGL
U11820.1_EANIPDKN_00002 EVDKLCQTMMIIEGEGILDKRSEDAGYDLLAAQETHFLPGEVRIVPTKTRIMLPKGHWGL
**************:***:** **********:* *:*****:::** .:******:***
NODE1_KJHFFCBH_00001 IMGKSSIGNKGMDVLGGVIDEGYRGEIGVIMINLSKKSTTILEKQKVAQLIILPCKHESL
MN630242_AMGANPBD_00002 IIGKSSIGSKGLDVLGGVIDEGYRGEIGVIMINLSRKSITLLEQQKIAQLIILPCKHEVL
U11820.1_EANIPDKN_00002 IMGKSSIGSKGMDVLGGVIDEGYRGELGVIMINLTKKSITILEKQKVAQLIILPCRHESL
*:******.**:**************:*******::** *:**:**:********:** *
NODE1_KJHFFCBH_00001 EQGEIIMNSERGEKGFGSTGVFSSWVDRIEEAELNHEKFHSDPQYLRTEFNIPRIVAEEI
MN630242_AMGANPBD_00002 EQGKVIMDSERGDKGYGSTGVFSSWVDRIEEAEINHEKFHSDPQYLRTEFNLPKMVAEEI
U11820.1_EANIPDKN_00002 QQGEIQMDSERGEKGFGSTGVFSSWVDRIEEAELNHEKFHSDPQYLRTEFNLPRIVAEEI
:**:: *:****:**:*****************:*****************:*::*****
NODE1_KJHFFCBH_00001 KRKCPLCRIRGEQVEGKLKIGPGIWQMDCTHFNGKIIIVAIHVESGLLWAQIIPQETADC
MN630242_AMGANPBD_00002 RRKCPVCRIRGEQVGGQLKIGPGIWQMDCTHFDGKIILVAIHVESGYIWAQIISQETADC
U11820.1_EANIPDKN_00002 KRKCPLCRIRGEQVGGQLKIGPGIWQMDCTHFNGKIIIVAVHVESGFLWAQIIPQETAEC
:****:******** *:***************:****:**:***** :***** ****:*
NODE1_KJHFFCBH_00001 TLKAIMQLVSTHNVTEIQTDNGPNFKNQKIEGLLSYMGIKHKLGIPGNPQSQALVENANS
MN630242_AMGANPBD_00002 TVKAVLQLLSAHNVTELQTDNGPNFKNQKMEGALNYMGVKHKFGIPGNPQSQALVENVNQ
U11820.1_EANIPDKN_00002 TVKALLQLICAHNVTELQTDNGPNFKNQKMEGLLNYMGIKHKLGIPGNPQSQALVENANN
*:**::**:.:*****:************:** *.***:***:**************.*.
NODE1_KJHFFCBH_00001 TLKVWIQKFLPETTSLDNALALALHCLNFKQRGRLGKMAPYELYTQQESLRIQDYFSQLP
MN630242_AMGANPBD_00002 TLKAWIQKFLPETTSLENALALAVHCLNFKQRGRIGGMAPYELLAQQESLRIQEFFSKIP
U11820.1_EANIPDKN_00002 TLKAWIQKFLPETTSLDNALALALHCLNFKQRGRLGKMAPYELYIQQESLRIQDYFSQIP
***.************:******:**********:* ****** ********::**::*
NODE1_KJHFFCBH_00001 QKLMMQWVYYKDQKDKKWKGPMRVEYWGQGSVLLKDEEKGYFLVPRRHIRRVPEPCTLPE
MN630242_AMGANPBD_00002 QKLQAQWIYYKDQKDKKWKGPMRVEYWGQGSVLLKDEEKGYFLVPRRHIKRVPEPCALPE
U11820.1_EANIPDKN_00002 QKLMMQWVYYKDQKDKKWKGPMRVEYWGQGSVLLKDEEKGYFLVPRRHIRRVPEPCTLPE
*** **:*****************************************:******:***
NODE1_KJHFFCBH_00001 GDE
MN630242_AMGANPBD_00002 GDE
U11820.1_EANIPDKN_00002 GDE
***
Overall, the level of homology is quite high at the protein level. There's maybe a little evidence that this contig's protein is closer to U11820.1 than to MN630242 (though there are also several positions where U11820.1 is the outgroup). So I'm not sure why pieces of this contig are so hard to align at the DNA level without further investigation, but honestly overall of these are looking like very similar viral sequences, as might be expected.
I also aligned the big contig to both U11820.1 and MN630242 at the DNA level in 3-way clustalo
alignment it is ok. Not sure what the difference is there. There is no obvious reason to prefer one reference over the other, according to my eye. When I have clustalo
output a clustering solution the big contig is essentially equidistant between the two references, so I don't buy that U11820.1 is "better" as a reference:
(
MN630242.1:0.116151
,
(
NODE1_rc:0.0504856
,
U11820.1:0.0504856
):0.0656651
)
;
As I noted in the comments, it's unfortunate that QUAST and SPAdes aren't working very well. I don't know what the deal is there. But it seems like overall the assembly is quite close to both references. I don't have any intuition for why SPAdes is doing what it's doing, or why alignment at the DNA level is acting weird (lots of artificial gaps?). But I don't think it's a pathology of SPAdes particularly, it seems like it's just something weird that happened with this dataset interacting with DNA aligners. Possibly something went strangely with read deposition?
Update:
See OP's self-answer as well (and also discussion in the comments).
Based on the (extremely informative!) follow-up updates that you have provided, I think that we can tentatively answer your questions:
The tl;dr is that you can check your reads to make sure they aren't weird and you can check your output sequence to see if it's weird.
Am I using SPAdes correctly? Is there a better way to use it?
Is it possible that the sequences that blast finds matching with the SPAdes contigs are indeed sequences that someone got using SPAdes and that's why these match (not because these are correct)?
What other option could explain these circumstances that I could be missing?
Correct answer by Maximilian Press on February 19, 2021
After many considerations, I am going to accept the response from Maximilian Press. I see now that some viruses have high variability (HIV even 50% of the sequence). Therefore MN630242.1. and U11820.1 are apparently two strains. There are things I still don't understand but these are beyond the initial goal of my question. Concretely:
I also want to point that apparently, Quast is not effective for viruses with such high variation.
I'm not going to delete this answer given that it responds to part of my question that is not responded in Maximilian's answer.
Therefore, directly answering my questions:
Am I using SPAdes correctly? Is there a better way to use it? I am using SPAdes mostly in the correct way, similarly to how an average user would. But rnaSPAdes seems to be more appropriate for RNA viruses and it indeed works far better in this case.
Is it possible that the sequences that Blast finds matching with the SPAdes contigs are indeed sequences that someone got using SPAdes and that's why these match? That could be possible in some cases but that doesn't mean these sequences are wrong as I initially considered. For whatever reason SPAdes seems to miss one strain (if that's what really is happening)
What other option could explain these circumstances that I could be missing? See Maximilian Press answer.
Answered by juanjo75es on February 19, 2021
Get help from others!
Recent Questions
Recent Answers
© 2024 TransWikia.com. All rights reserved. Sites we Love: PCI Database, UKBizDB, Menu Kuliner, Sharing RPP