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
So running into an odd issue. I am running a few K. pneumoniae samples against an MLST database using 0.2.0, and on first run, it generated the following best match:
It says the rpoB_135 allele hit has 1 SNP, and these are the coverage stats:
So I saved my new consensus fastas, and then added them back to my MLST database to allow for calling against these "new" alleles. When rerunning the same FASTQ file, I then got this result:
258 3 3 1 1 1 1 79
With these stats:
42.48 0.171428571429
Any ideas? The alleles for 258 should've been present in the earlier database, so not sure why I would get a 135* call on first run, with overall less depth of coverage (~22x) vs 42x on the repeat, with a clean hit against all ST258 alleles.
Best,
S. Wesley Long
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hmmm, that's a interesting one. Our first hypothesis that is your reads are a mix of different genomes, as this has been the cause of weird SRST2 results in the past. So perhaps run some QC to see if you have a mixed sample?
It would be really informative if you could run SRST2 with --save_scores for your two databases (before and after the new allele was added). Then we could take a look at the .scores files. In particular, I'm curious how allele 1 scored in your first run and how allele 135 scored in your second run.
Howdy all,
So running into an odd issue. I am running a few K. pneumoniae samples against an MLST database using 0.2.0, and on first run, it generated the following best match:
It says the rpoB_135 allele hit has 1 SNP, and these are the coverage stats:
So I saved my new consensus fastas, and then added them back to my MLST database to allow for calling against these "new" alleles. When rerunning the same FASTQ file, I then got this result:
258 3 3 1 1 1 1 79
With these stats:
42.48 0.171428571429
Any ideas? The alleles for 258 should've been present in the earlier database, so not sure why I would get a 135* call on first run, with overall less depth of coverage (~22x) vs 42x on the repeat, with a clean hit against all ST258 alleles.
Best,
S. Wesley Long
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: