Can I use sepp fragment insertion with gg 13_8, then classify my reads with the updated gg 2024.09 ?
If I should not be doing that?
How should I be building the tree using the updated greengenes database?
Can I use sepp fragment insertion with gg 13_8, then classify my reads with the updated gg 2024.09 ?
If I should not be doing that?
How should I be building the tree using the updated greengenes database?
Hi @RanaAbdelaal,
If placement is necessary, a SEPP reference for 2022.10 is available here. The backbone phylogeny is identical to what's in 2024.09.
Best,
Daniel
Will you kindly suggest the optimal approach?
I tried the Greengenes non-V4-16S plugin, but I found the tree incompatible with the rest of the downstreem analysis. (The core metrics phylogenetics command failed because of the tree)
qiime greengenes2 non-v4-16s
--i-table dada2_table.qza
--i-sequences dada2_rep_set.qza
--i-backbone 2024.09.backbone.full-length.fna.qza
--o-mapped-table mapped-table.qza
--o-representatives mapped-sequences.qza
qiime phylogeny align-to-tree-mafft-fasttree
--i-sequences mapped-sequences.qza
--o-alignment aligned-rep-seqs.qza
--o-masked-alignment masked-aligned-rep-seqs.qza
--o-tree unrooted-tree.qza
--o-rooted-tree tree.qza
qiime diversity core-metrics-phylogenetic
--i-table ./dada2_table.qza
--i-phylogeny ./tree.qza
--m-metadata-file ./metadata.tsv
--p-sampling-depth 81498
--output-dir ./core-metrics-results
I would recommend just using the table and Greengenes2 phylogeny following the non-v4-16s
step. No need to re-estimate a phylogeny, and doing so from short sequences can yield a poor quality phylogeny anyway
Best,
Daniel
Thank you, but I just feel more comfortable using sepp and fragment insertion.
If I do so using the sepp reference for 2022.10.
It's still a valid approach correct?
One more question.
I already did my analysis using sepp fragment insertion with 13_8 greengenes.
And classified using gg 2024.09 full length.
Do I have to redo the whole analysis, or are my reaults valid and I should go with it?
Thank you
They aren't invalid, but using Greengenes 13_8 could draw reviewer scrutiny as that database is over 10 years old.
Best,
Daniel
This topic was automatically closed 31 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.