More PacBio Subread Experiments...
In my last post I took a quick look at some PacBio subreads and used the open source CCS tools to generate the consensus reads. I’ve now run these through BEST. The results are as following:
An overall Q23 (0.995) accuracy seems somewhat consistent with statements in the public CCS documentation.
I was curious to better understand how much the pulse information played into the CCS process. The ccs tools don’t seem to run if the pulse information is missing/incorrect. So I wrote a script that replaces all the pulse information with the number 101. The results seems to be…