Skip to content
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

Expose fastq_join command to concatenate (not merge) PE reads #98

Open
colinbrislawn opened this issue Aug 7, 2024 · 4 comments
Open

Comments

@colinbrislawn
Copy link
Contributor

colinbrislawn commented Aug 7, 2024

Vsearch supports --fastq_join in which "sequences are not merged as with the fastq_mergepairs command, but simply joined with a gap."

Addition Description
It would work like the existing merge-pairs (q2 plugin docs).

Current Behavior
only merging is supported via overlap

Proposed Behavior
Add a new semantic type for formally-paired (now concatenated!) Illumina reads
Add warnings and docs about how this differs from most other methods

Questions

  1. Who wants to make this new semantic type?
  2. What programs take discontiguous amplicons as input?

Refs for vsearch
Forums x-ref.
803f-1392r amplicons is 590 reads, using PE300 x-ref

Refs for DADA2
https://forum.qiime2.org/t/dada2-option-justconcatenate/21661/2
https://forum.qiime2.org/t/classification-of-non-overlapping-reads-treated-with-justconcatenate/17914/7

@lizgehret
Copy link
Member

Hey @colinbrislawn, thanks for submitting this! People have definitely been requesting this for a while, but this will be a big undertaking. We're going to discuss this in our engineering meeting next week to see what kind of timeline makes sense for getting this implemented!

@lizgehret
Copy link
Member

Hey @colinbrislawn circling back on this - what are some of the actions you're hoping to utilize this on downstream? Just looking for a better scope for prioritizing this - this would be easy enough to create, but we won't be able to use it with anything as it currently stands.

@colinbrislawn
Copy link
Contributor Author

we won't be able to use it with anything

Yeah, we also reached this conclusion last time. Discontiguous amplicons break a lot of assumptions, so we may want to put this on hold until we have the downstream pipeline planned.

(If someone has reads like this, they should comment here what they plan to do with them!)

@lizgehret
Copy link
Member

Gotcha! Yeah agreed, we'll put this on hold for now and see if we receive any replies (or forum posts) in the coming months. I'm going to move this to our 'approved but unscheduled' project board in the meantime!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants