I have tested the outcome of concatenated reads outside q2, but this did not result in taxonomic annotations that I can see with deblur and dada2 (single-end). Interstingly, both single-end analyses are very similar to the deblur paired-end analysis, that I mistakenly conducted before. It could well be that the reverse reads were droppen at one step, and the 'paired-end' data seqt were just single-end in reality. Well, intersting to see this!
A q2 quality-control evaluate-taxonomy on the two classifications (deblur single-end vs. deblur 'paired-end') resulted in the following vizualization, where the 'reference taxonomy' was deblue single-end and the 'observed taxonomy' was deblur paired-end:
comp-tax-Bact1-se-pe-deblur.qza.qzv (288.1 KB)
I assume the two taxonomy results are very similar...
I thought I could use this great tool 'qualty-control' to compare other analyes: I used a single-end dataset and analyzed it with deblur and dada2, and then compared the two taxonomy classifcations, and I got this visualization:
comp-Bact1-Mi1i2-deblur-dada2.qzv (255.4 KB)
Here, I'm afraid that I this result is not true. This would indicate a perfect match, but I doubt about it.
The evaluate-taxonomy script needs two FeatureData[Taxonomy] artifacts as input data. Is it reasonable that deblur and dada2 do indeed create such very similar taxonomy results? Of course, they should, but I would expect that this should result in 'very similar' taxonomic calssifications, but not in 'identical', right?
Thanks for you great support!