Florent Angly wrote:
Peter and Daniel, thanks for the comments.
On 19/10/11 23:49, Peter Cock wrote:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Daniel Blankenberg<d...@bx.psu.edu>
Sorry for the delay. I did try the patch out shortly after you
it, but it caused the functional to fail. I was able to fix the
allow the existing tests to start passing, but I've been bogged down
and haven't been able to perform a more thorough review of the code.
could provide tests with files (e.g. for the tools affected) that
new functionality, that would be a great help.
I'll have a look at that.
The Bioperl and Biopython projects use this convention for FASTA and
The use of partition removes python compatibility for<2.5, although
I guess you could use split, but special case on there being no space.
Also, I'm not entirely sold on having the "Identifier line" being
"identifier" +<space> + "description" instead a single identifier
That is the normal convention, just like with FASTA.
I was not aware of this new naming. It seems like a terrible decision
from Illumina because now both reads in a pair technically have the same
ID (but a different description).
That is expected, "@Read A" and "@Read B" have the same identifier,
This would mean that identifiers could not themselves contain spaces,
but "There is no standardization for identifiers" (so they could
have spaces?). Could two different reads be identified as "Read A"
B", but then would no longer be uniquely identifiable as each would
identified as "Read". If this added functionalilty were introduced as
optional behavior (e.g. a user needs to click a checkbox on the tools to
apply the id line splitting), these concerns can be mitigated.
Peter, Florent, anyone else: I'd be very interested to hear your
the above, particularly in respect to know real-world data. For now,
discount SRA data from this discussion.
See also the new Illumina 1.8 naming convention where they dropped
the /1 and /2 and hit it in the description. It should be tested, but
Florent's patch will work here (while the current Galaxy behaviour
This is not quite the case. Here are two fastq header lines for a pair of
reads produced by Illumina's CASAVA 1.8:
The two key things to note, relevant to this discussion are:
1. A space character is used to split the fields into two groups.
This is actually a good thing, because that particular character can NEVER
appear in either a sequence or a quality line. This make it easy to detect
name lines as those beginning with "@" (a valid quality character) and
also having a space. If you are writing a parser for the new Illumina
fastq format, please don't break the names on spaces!
2. Appart from the read number, encoded as the digit immediately following
the space, the two lines are identical--as they were with earlier CASAVA
versions. Why is this worse than two lines differing by "/1" vs. "/2"?
An additional improvement with the new naming convention is that flowcell
and run ID's, as well as a flag for not passing filters (where N means
does PF), are now included.
Eric L. Cabot
University of Wisconsin-Madison
The Galaxy User list should be used for the discussion of
Galaxy analysis and other features on the public server
at usegalaxy.org. Please keep all replies on the list by
using "reply all" in your mail client. For discussion of
local Galaxy instances and the Galaxy source code, please
use the Galaxy Development list:
To manage your subscriptions to this and other Galaxy lists,
please use the interface at: