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
Hi everyone, I have a question regarding the use of 16S data with the default Kraken2 database. I’ve seen some articles that use 16S data with the Kraken2 default database and also the RefSeq database. I would like to know if this is really possible and if it could lead to any kind of bias, such as many false positive species identification. Here are some articles that utilize 16S data with the databases I mentioned above. I have been reading a lot about Kraken's mechanisms and learned that if there is ambiguity in a read, it avoids classifying it at the species level, and that this is something Bracken resolves.
My question here is, how feasible is it to use 16S data with the standard database for metagenomic analysis?
Hi everyone, I have a question regarding the use of 16S data with the default Kraken2 database. I’ve seen some articles that use 16S data with the Kraken2 default database and also the RefSeq database. I would like to know if this is really possible and if it could lead to any kind of bias, such as many false positive species identification. Here are some articles that utilize 16S data with the databases I mentioned above. I have been reading a lot about Kraken's mechanisms and learned that if there is ambiguity in a read, it avoids classifying it at the species level, and that this is something Bracken resolves.
My question here is, how feasible is it to use 16S data with the standard database for metagenomic analysis?
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-40799-x
https://www.microbiologyresearch.org/content/journal/mgen/10.1099/mgen.0.000949
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: