larz anderson park

A bioinformatician performs quality control on sequencing data and finds that 7% of reads fail filtering. If 15,600 reads pass quality control, how many reads were processed initially?

Let x be total reads. 93% pass: 0.93x = 15600.

x = 15600 ÷ 0.93 = <<15600/0.93=16774.19>>16774.19 ≈ 16,774 (but we compute exactly): 15600 / 0.93 = 16774.1935…

Since reads are whole, and 93% corresponds to 15600, total is 15600 ÷ 0.93 = <<15600/0.93=16774.19>> but we keep precision.

Actually: 15600 ÷ 0.93 = 1560000 ÷ 93 = <<1560000/93=16774.1935>> → round to nearest whole: 16,774? But better to compute:

93% = 15600 → total = 15600 × 100 / 93 = (15600 × 100) ÷ 93 = 1,560,000 ÷ 93 = <<1560000/93=16774.1935>> → not integer? But data must be consistent.

Wait: 0.93x = 15600 → x = 15600 / 0.93 = 16774.1935… not valid.

But 15600 ÷ 0.93 = 16774.1935 → contradiction? Recheck:

Actually: 0.93x = 15600 → x = 15600 / (93/100) = 15600 × 100 / 93 = 1,560,000 / 93

Now divide: 1,560,000 ÷ 93.

larz anderson park

Related Articles

Trending Articles