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

Strategy for PR2 species assignments #593

Closed
andand opened this issue Jun 12, 2023 · 7 comments
Closed

Strategy for PR2 species assignments #593

andand opened this issue Jun 12, 2023 · 7 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@andand
Copy link

andand commented Jun 12, 2023

Description of feature

According to this issue in PR2 regarding assigning species, sequences with annotation ending with "_sp." may actually belong to properly named species of the same genus (but the data provider may have failed to define them at species level). If these are included when running assignSpecies one may therefor get seemingly multi-species-matching ASVs, although they in fact only match one species. It may thus be a good idea to remove reference sequences with annotation ending with "_sp." before running assignSpecies.

@andand andand added the enhancement New feature or request label Jun 12, 2023
@d4straub
Copy link
Collaborator

d4straub commented Jun 15, 2023

Thanks for that info. I see annotations ending with "_sp." in PR2 v5.0.0 and v4.14.0. I could modify the assignSpecies input when using any PR2 version to not include any sequences ending with "_sp.". That would affect all versions. Let me know if you disagree.

edit: that could be done by | awk '!/ sp.\n/' RS=">" ORS=">" (remove sequences of names that end with sp.) in bin/taxref_reformat_pr2.sh.

@andand
Copy link
Author

andand commented Jun 16, 2023

Sounds good!

@d4straub
Copy link
Collaborator

@jtangrot Do you agree to remove for assignSpecies all annotations ending with sp.? I am asking because it seems valid to me but I am not really into taxonomic databases and would welcome another opinion.

@jtangrot
Copy link
Contributor

I agree, but it should be noted that I work close to Anders (andand), so my opinion is a bit biased in this case...

@d4straub
Copy link
Collaborator

Thanks, I see :)

@d4straub
Copy link
Collaborator

Would any of you like to review #599 ? Its just what we discussed here, tiny change.

@d4straub
Copy link
Collaborator

Merged, will be in next release!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants