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
It was stated that metapop is not optimized to study "strain-level genotypes". While since the calculation methods for metrics of macro-/micro-diversity are the same for both species-level and strain-level populations, is it possible to tune the settings to achieve this? For example, for species-level population mapping, a 95% ANI boundary is expected, the minimal identity of reads to reference can be set to 92% (lower with 3% percentage due to genome heterogeneity). For strain-level population mapping, a 98-99% ANI boundary is expected (or a higher setting as one may choose), the minimal identity of reads to reference can be set to 95 or 96%. This seems to be what inStrain sets (https://instrain.readthedocs.io/en/master/important_concepts.html#handling-and-reducing-mis-mapping-reads).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
It was stated that metapop is not optimized to study "strain-level genotypes". While since the calculation methods for metrics of macro-/micro-diversity are the same for both species-level and strain-level populations, is it possible to tune the settings to achieve this? For example, for species-level population mapping, a 95% ANI boundary is expected, the minimal identity of reads to reference can be set to 92% (lower with 3% percentage due to genome heterogeneity). For strain-level population mapping, a 98-99% ANI boundary is expected (or a higher setting as one may choose), the minimal identity of reads to reference can be set to 95 or 96%. This seems to be what inStrain sets (https://instrain.readthedocs.io/en/master/important_concepts.html#handling-and-reducing-mis-mapping-reads).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: