[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Fwd: Bug#783833: ITP: python-obitools -- set of programs specifically designed for analyzing NGS data in a DNA metabarcoding contex



CC'ing the list, forgot to add it when I created the ITP

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Olivier Sallou <olivier.sallou@irisa.fr>
Date: jeu. 30 avr. 2015 à 17:15
Subject: Bug#783833: ITP: python-obitools -- set of programs specifically designed for analyzing NGS data in a DNA metabarcoding contex
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>


Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Olivier Sallou <osallou@debian.org>

* Package name    : python-obitools
  Version         : 1.1.16
  Upstream Author : Eric Coissac
* URL             : http://metabarcoding.org//obitools/
* License         : CeCILL-V2
  Programming Lang: Python
  Description     : set of programs specifically designed for analyzing NGS data in a DNA metabarcoding contex

The OBITools package is a set of programs specifically designed for analyzing NGS data in a DNA metabarcoding context, taking into account taxonomic information.
OBITools enrich the Unix command line interface with a set of new commands dedicated to NGS data processing. Most of them have a name starting with the obi prefix. They automatically recognize the input file format amongst most of the standard sequence file formats (i.e. fasta, fastq, EMBL, and GenBank formats). Nevertheless, options are available to enforce some format specificity such as the encoding system used in fastq files for quality codes. Most of the basic Unix commands have their OBITools equivalent (e.g. obihead vs head, obitail vs tail, obigrep vs grep), which is convenient for scientists familiar with Unix. The main difference between any standard Unix command and its OBITools counterpart is that the treatment unit is no longer the text line but the sequence record. As a sequence record is more complex than a single text line, the OBITools programs have many supplementary options compared to their Unix equivalents.

Reply to: