-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 51
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
The meaning of --number in simulator.py #170
Comments
Can you please report your version number and the exact command you used? |
I was using the latest version, installed from conda.
I simulated reads from 100 to 10000. The number of total simulated reads (aligned/unaligned) is around 60-80% of the set value of --number. Below are the examples for
BTW,
|
|
I have checked the log. It looks the same as #114 (comment) If I met Some of my references are highly similar. It may not be able to simulate adequate reads if the value is set too high. Also, can I still trust the simulated reads from Thanks for the answers in advance. |
Hey @yanhui09 Sorry for late reply and thank you for providing comprehensive information regarding your run and also looking into the issue in detail. As far as I remember, the "IndexError: list index out of range" was a bug related to setting -min and -max parameters when simulating (#118) and I believe it is fixed now and I am surprised you encountered the similar error using the latest version. Do you get the IndexError exactly at the same step reported in #114 (head_vs_ht_ratio step)? One possible reason for not getting expected number of simulated reads might be that the reference genome you are using is smaller than the read lengths you are trying to simulate. I would love to hear @kmnip thoughts on this as well.
Just to confirm, you are saying that when you encounter IndexError, the output simulated read counts are equal to expected But if there is no error given, the output simulated counts are NOT equal? Is that correct? How many times did you run the simulator? I wonder if you experienced similar outcomes from like 10 runs? |
@SaberHQ Sorry I made some "wrong" sayings, it shall be
Actually, I don't set values for And my reference is a |
Hi. I'm getting the same error. Were you able to resolve it @yanhui09 yanhui09? I used this Thank you in advance for your help. |
Dear @npdungca Would you please confirm which version are you using? (I suggest you use the latest committed version from Github by the way). I will publish a new release within the next couple of weeks, so you might also try that if you want. It will contain a bunch of bug fixes. Would you please also confirm whether you get the same error when not setting the min and max arguments? That will help us to narrow down the error source. Thanks. |
Hi, Saber. I'm using the latest version from github. I just downloaded and installed nanosim last week. I'm getting this error message when running it without the min and max arguments: Below are my commands: #read simulation |
Got it. I'll try that. Thank you, @yanhui09. I'll also wait for and try the latest version of nanosim. It might resolve it :) |
Dear @npdungca the error you reported here is not related to the The next release might happen within the next month or so. Meanwhile, try the latest committed version. Thanks. |
Hi,
Thanks for the software to simulate nanopore reads. I get a bit confused while using the simulator.py with --number.
From the help message, --number suggests the number of reads to be simulated. However, I counted the number of the unaligned/aligned fastq sequences in the simulation output. The total number was not equal to the set "-n" value even when I added them up.
Do I miss something? Why are they not equal?
Thank you very much for the answers in advance.
Yan
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: