Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(4)
First, the sequences were filtered using a minimum quality cut off value of 40.
‡Discarded reads were removed using Trimmomatic based on a sliding window quality cut off of (4:15) and a minimum length of 36 nt after adapter removal.
The Fastq files generated by sequencing were trimmed for both adapters and for a quality cut off of 30 using Trim Galore (http://www.bioinformatics.babraham.ac.uk/projects/trim_galore/).ac.uk/projects/trim_galore/
Detection of polymorphisms was performed based on the 174 million reads passing quality filters with the following parameters: confidence score threshold = 100, coverage > 20 reads, base quality cut off = 5, ignore locations within or next to homopolymer stretches > 10 nucleotides.
Similar(56)
For each sequence, regions with low-quality scores (quality value<10, according to the quality files) were cut off to get reliable data.
More detailed comparative genomic analysis was based on a subset of CDS that exceeded a quality cut-off of 60 based on the raw self-BLAST score, or "reference" score.
The raw data were quality-filtered using a quality cut-off value of 40.
Base calling was performed using the Phred program [ 30, 31] at quality cut-off set at Phred 20.
The raw data obtained from 454 GS FLX+ was filtered with a quality cut-off value of 40.
It is worth noting that the flanking regions of both paralogs are virtually undistinguishable, at least based on the quality cut-off (> 20) of trace files.
The 6888 GSS sequences were trimmed using the Phred software [ 106] with the default quality cut-off, and the vector sequences were masked and removed.
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