-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 89
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
When I invoke poretools times command the result is not what is expected. #189
Comments
Poretools was created and developed at a time when fast5 files only had one read per file. Based on the file names, I'd guess you're looking at recent multi-fast5 files (probably from a Flongle), which have multiple reads per file. ONT does provide utilities in their github repostory to convert from one to another, but I expect you'll get a better outcome for what you want by looking directly at the read summary output from basecalling. |
OK.... python multi_to_single_fast5.py -i path/to-multi-fast5/directory -s some/output/directory poretools times /some/output/directory WARNING:poretools:No start time for fast5_.fast5! |
I need specific columns of data to be generated by poretools times which is not in the sequencing summary text file generated from a MINION run. These specific data names are read in by a python script. The following data names are what is not generated currently and what is actually needed. Is there a way to generate these data variables with sequencing summary without using poretools times? exp_starttime |
A list of data variables the sequencing summary text file generates from a Minion Run; filename |
I'll repeat that it's really not a great idea to use this old software for processing new data. It seems odd to need UNIX timestamp values (and derived values) for every single read. ONT changed their time representation between different versions, and may have altered other things with FAST5 files. I think they changed from absolute time to relative time, so adding unix timestamp values would require fetching the experiment start time from the sequencing logs. Or you could add a constant timestamp value of 1st January 2000 to everything, to make it really obvious that the timestamps are incorrect. |
Completely agree that this is no longer the toolset to use here. I need to update the README and make it obvious that poretools is deprecated owing to all of the ONT changes. |
Which version of poretools has the correct time representation (UNIX)? |
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: