Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(1)
Exact(2)
For many of these strains, the original raw sequence data ("reads") and the completed genome sequences are publicly available; however, in no case is the assembly itself – the complete specification of the placement of the reads in the assembled genome – available.
This cleaning and trimming step resulted in 298,778 high-quality reads, corresponding to 96.8% of the original raw sequence.
Similar(58)
After trimming the adapter sequences and removing the short sequences with low complexity and low quality scores, 445,787 high quality reads were obtained, corresponding to 88.5% of the original raw sequences.
This pre-assembly cleaning and trimming step resulted in 1,365,353 high quality (HQ) reads, with an average length of 400 bp, corresponding to 98.5% of the original raw sequences.
Different levels of source distortion were generated by encoding the original raw video sequence with H.264/AVC, using different quantization parameters (QP).
For BAC 519J4, the original ABI-Sanger raw sequences were also available and could be used for comparison.
The resulting consensus sequence was subsequently used in GS Reference Mapper (Roche) to obtain further sequence reads from the original raw data.
Assembled sequences, as well as the original raw reads, were deposited at NCBI under project number BioProject PRJNA76847 after performing additional sequence trimming of a small number of contigs that showed evidence of insufficient Illumina adapter trimming.
These annotations were compared to the original annotation of the A. bokrumensis SK2 (NC_008260 genome from GenBank [gi 19683]); in addition, the raw sequence of SK2 was re-annotated with these three annotation pipelines (Additional file 1: Table S2).
The sequencing-received raw image data were transformed by base calling into raw sequence data, which were termed raw reads.
Sequencing-received raw image data were transformed by base calling into raw sequence data.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com