Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Oct 29.
Published in final edited form as: J Data Mining Genomics Proteomics. 2013 Jul 31;4(3):16008. doi: 10.4172/2153-0602.1000136

Table 1.

A Comparison of read accuracy (ABIP) improvements across three quality control (QC) strategies and their impacts on the De Novo assembly results.

QC method None 50-bp
trimmed
at both ends
QV-Based spike-in
trained SVR
# of CCS reads selected all 9812 all 9812 top 3000 top 5000 top 3000 top 5000
90% percentile of read accuracy 99.44% 99.48% 99.62% 99.56% 99.62% 99.56%
50% percentile of read accuracy 97.48% 97.63% 99.12% 98.61% 99.12% 98.67%
10% percentile of read accuracy 92.98% 93.06% 98.44% 94.56% 98.54% 95.09%
De Novo Assembly: # of Contigs 13 (3 FP*) 10* (0 FP) 11 (1 FP) 12 (2 FP) 10 (0 FP) 10 (0 FP)

Note*: final assembled length is 100 bp shorter.

*

FP denotes False Positive