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

how to automatically deal circularization problem in **trycycler reconcile** step #39

Closed
yipukangda opened this issue Jun 16, 2022 · 2 comments

Comments

@yipukangda
Copy link

yipukangda commented Jun 16, 2022

Hi,
After assembly and cluster step, durning reconcile process I meet a error as:

Error: failed to circularise sequence K_utg000001l because its end could not be found in other
sequences. You can either trim some sequence off the end of K_utg000001l or exclude the sequence
altogether and try again.

Then the whole workflow stacked, how to continue with this process by some automatic operations.

Thanks

@propan2one
Copy link

Hi I made tests to put back the clusterized sequences with the same start using circlator fixstart from circlator before to trycycler reconcile and I managed to overcome this step. Maybe it will help you, if so don't hesitate to send a feedback.

@rrwick
Copy link
Owner

rrwick commented Mar 15, 2023

There is currently no way to fully automate Trycycler's reconciliation process, and that's partly by design. Having a human think about the result and making a decision is key to Trycycler producing solid results. This is partly because a person can problem-solve tough cases better than a program. And partly because I want the user to abort the process if there are too many issues - e.g. if reconciliation is hard, that's a red flag that the dataset might be dodgy.

However, it is definitely true that Trycycler reconcile could be more efficient. Instead of stopping after each bad contig, it could assess all contigs and then stop. This would allow users to complete the process with fewer attempts, and this is something I'd like to address in the future. I'll close this issue now, but I'm leaving #47 (similar issue) open as an enhancement request.

Thanks!
Ryan

@rrwick rrwick closed this as completed Mar 15, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants