Table 4.
Comparison of ELECTOR’s and LRCstats’s outputs
| Uncorrected | Corrected | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Metric | ELECTOR | LRCstats | ELECTOR | LRCstats |
| Corrected by HALC | ||||
| Processed bases | 238 309 333 | 237 655 341 | 212 266 193 | 214 152 119 |
| Error rate | 0.1403 | 0.1751 | 0.0042 | 0.0023 |
| Insertions | 28 772 841 | 32 589 970 | 100 874 | 215 507 |
| Deletions | 5 235 890 | 8 991 984 | 1 035 978 | 120 743 |
| Substitutions | 4 058 953 | 1 633 123 | 198 853 | 221 646 |
| Recall (%) | – | – | 0.9997 | ✗ |
| Precision (%) | – | – | 0.9959 | ✗ |
| Trimmed/split | – | – | 12.043 | ✗ |
| Mean missing size | – | – | 577.5 | ✗ |
| Extended | – | – | 71 | ✗ |
| Mean extension size | – | – | 53.2 | ✗ |
| Low quality reads | – | – | 160 | ✗ |
| Small reads | – | – | 3436 | ✗ |
| Corrected by Canu | ||||
| ELECTOR | LRCstats | ELECTOR | LRCstats | |
| Processed bases | 244 560 743 | 244 633 066 | 229 555 492 | 229 825 812 |
| Error rate | 0.1425 | 0.1781 | 0.0506 | 0.0694 |
| Insertions | 30 090 583 | 34 105 075 | 12 252 413 | 12 942 568 |
| Deletions | 5 483 119 | 9 489 618 | 2 574 320 | 3 134 365 |
| Substitutions | 4 375 017 | 1 748 302 | 2 197 172 | 1 591 650 |
| Recall (%) | – | – | 0.9515 | ✗ |
| Precision (%) | – | – | 0.9495 | ✗ |
| Trimmed/split | – | – | 2.216 | ✗ |
| Mean missing size | – | – | 35.1 | ✗ |
| Extended | – | – | 178 | ✗ |
| Mean extension size | – | – | 30.7 | ✗ |
| Low quality reads | – | – | 43.0 | ✗ |
| Small reads | – | – | 0.0 | ✗ |
Both tools were evaluated on the S. cerevisiae dataset, using a hybrid corrector (HALC) and a self corrector (Canu). A dash in the Uncorrected columns indicates that the metric is not computed for the ‘uncorrected’ reads. A cross indicates that LRCstats does not provide the metric.