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
Hi, I am using stringMLST and I noticed that I got different results for running the same sample more than once. The database changed (updated). What was surprising that some of the assigned ST's in the first run were completely different in the second. is this normal?
stringMLST should be deterministic given the same reads and kmer db. If you update the database that has the possibility of calling a different ST because additional gene sequences and alleles are available - this I don't think is super surprising. I would be surprised if running stringMLST on the same sample, with the same db resulted in different results. This should really only happen if there's significant contamination and even then be rare.
I appreciate the clarification. I have 2 more questions if you don't mind.
Is StringMLST applicable on Oxford Nanopore Technologies (long reads), I have the amplicon from 7 housekeeping genes sequenced.
I also used RAxML on the variant calling from mpileup files including all fastq files, some samples have the same ST predicted and in the tree they do not seem to cluster together.
Is StringMLST applicable on Oxford Nanopore Technologies (long reads), I have the amplicon from 7 housekeeping genes sequenced.
Technically yes, though it's sensitive to read errors, which tend to be more prevalent in ONT reads, and converges to a solution better with higher read count which can sometimes be an issue with ONT reads. If you have high coverage ONT, error corrected data you should be fine.
I also used RAxML on the variant calling from mpileup files including all fastq files, some samples have the same ST predicted and in the tree they do not seem to cluster together.
Variant calling provides much more fine grained data - remember an ST is 7 data points, variant calls could be hundreds or thousands. STs are an approximation of genetic relatedness (more phenotype than genotype). They may not cluster in the same branch but they'll likely appear in the same subtree.
Activity
ar0ch commentedon Aug 9, 2024
Hi Ralph,
stringMLST should be deterministic given the same reads and kmer db. If you update the database that has the possibility of calling a different ST because additional gene sequences and alleles are available - this I don't think is super surprising. I would be surprised if running stringMLST on the same sample, with the same db resulted in different results. This should really only happen if there's significant contamination and even then be rare.
ralphmatar commentedon Aug 18, 2024
I appreciate the clarification. I have 2 more questions if you don't mind.
ralphmatar commentedon Aug 18, 2024
This is an example
ar0ch commentedon Aug 22, 2024
Technically yes, though it's sensitive to read errors, which tend to be more prevalent in ONT reads, and converges to a solution better with higher read count which can sometimes be an issue with ONT reads. If you have high coverage ONT, error corrected data you should be fine.
Variant calling provides much more fine grained data - remember an ST is 7 data points, variant calls could be hundreds or thousands. STs are an approximation of genetic relatedness (more phenotype than genotype). They may not cluster in the same branch but they'll likely appear in the same subtree.