Question: Hisat2 versus Bowtie2
2
gravatar for nalpas.nicolas
2.9 years ago by
nalpas.nicolas20 wrote:

Hi everyone,

I am currently analysing Exome-seq data (paired-end) for two samples. And for the alignment I tried Bowtie2 and Hisat2, with very similar parameters.

The command I have used to run Bowtie2 is as follows: bowtie2 -x $IDX -1 $file -2 $secfile -S ${WKDIR}/${outfile}.sam -q --phred33 --sensitive-local --un-conc-gz ${WKDIR}/${outfile}_failalign_%.fastq.gz --al-conc-gz ${WKDIR}/${outfile}_concoralign_%.fastq.gz --met-file ${WKDIR}/Bowtie2_metrics.txt --no-unal -p $THREADS

and the command for Hisat2: hisat2 -x $IDX -1 $file -2 $secfile -S ${WKDIR}/${outfile}.sam -q --phred33 --un-conc-gz ${WKDIR}/${outfile}_failalign_%.fastq.gz --al-conc-gz ${WKDIR}/${outfile}_concoralign_%.fastq.gz --met-file ${WKDIR}/Hisat2_metrics.txt --no-unal -p ${THREADS} --no-spliced-alignment

I am happy with both alignment, however I notice that Bowtie2 has an alignment rate of ~99% while Hisat2 has ~90% (see detail below):

> /home/nalpas/bin/Bowtie2.sh
Start 14:58:04 20-04-2016.
53505995 reads; of these:
  53505995 (100.00%) were paired; of these:
    9489804 (17.74%) aligned concordantly 0 times
    32491522 (60.73%) aligned concordantly exactly 1 time
    11524669 (21.54%) aligned concordantly >1 times
    ----
    9489804 pairs aligned concordantly 0 times; of these:
      5207409 (54.87%) aligned discordantly 1 time
    ----
    4282395 pairs aligned 0 times concordantly or discordantly; of these:
      8564790 mates make up the pairs; of these:
        918451 (10.72%) aligned 0 times
        2809961 (32.81%) aligned exactly 1 time
        4836378 (56.47%) aligned >1 times
99.14% overall alignment rate

Aligning /media/sf_F_DRIVE/Nicolas/A375_S_R/FiltReads/GS150692_R1_catfilt.fastq.gz and its pair /media/sf_F_DRIVE/Nicolas/A375_S_R/FiltReads/GS150692_R2_catfilt.fastq.gz ...

39440732 reads; of these:
  39440732 (100.00%) were paired; of these:
    5687377 (14.42%) aligned concordantly 0 times
    24753441 (62.76%) aligned concordantly exactly 1 time
    8999914 (22.82%) aligned concordantly >1 times
    ----
    5687377 pairs aligned concordantly 0 times; of these:
      3587160 (63.07%) aligned discordantly 1 time
    ----
    2100217 pairs aligned 0 times concordantly or discordantly; of these:
      4200434 mates make up the pairs; of these:
        348229 (8.29%) aligned 0 times
        1284399 (30.58%) aligned exactly 1 time
        2567806 (61.13%) aligned >1 times
99.56% overall alignment rate
Completed 03:55:07 21-04-2016.


>/home/nalpas/bin/Hisat2.sh
Start 23:40:10 04-05-2016.
53505995 reads; of these:
  53505995 (100.00%) were paired; of these:
    13290978 (24.84%) aligned concordantly 0 times
    34091291 (63.71%) aligned concordantly exactly 1 time
    6123726 (11.44%) aligned concordantly >1 times
    ----
    13290978 pairs aligned concordantly 0 times; of these:
      4551330 (34.24%) aligned discordantly 1 time
    ----
    8739648 pairs aligned 0 times concordantly or discordantly; of these:
      17479296 mates make up the pairs; of these:
        10807086 (61.83%) aligned 0 times
        4454883 (25.49%) aligned exactly 1 time
        2217327 (12.69%) aligned >1 times
89.90% overall alignment rate

Aligning /media/sf_F_DRIVE/Nicolas/A375_S_R/FiltReads/GS150692_R1_catfilt.fastq.gz and its pair /media/sf_F_DRIVE/Nicolas/A375_S_R/FiltReads/GS150692_R2_catfilt.fastq.gz ...

39440732 reads; of these:
  39440732 (100.00%) were paired; of these:
    8671224 (21.99%) aligned concordantly 0 times
    26184600 (66.39%) aligned concordantly exactly 1 time
    4584908 (11.62%) aligned concordantly >1 times
    ----
    8671224 pairs aligned concordantly 0 times; of these:
      2814874 (32.46%) aligned discordantly 1 time
    ----
    5856350 pairs aligned 0 times concordantly or discordantly; of these:
      11712700 mates make up the pairs; of these:
        7800874 (66.60%) aligned 0 times
        2679088 (22.87%) aligned exactly 1 time
        1232738 (10.52%) aligned >1 times
90.11% overall alignment rate
Completed 05:11:54 05-05-2016.

I would have expected that Hisat2 would give me better results, so now I am wondering whether I missed some important parameters in my Hisat2 process. Does anyone have any ideas/experience?

Best wishes,

ADD COMMENTlink modified 20 months ago by Biostar ♦♦ 20 • written 2.9 years ago by nalpas.nicolas20
2

I would imagine that the --sensitive-local setting is the main difference. Try trimming your reads a bit more and perhaps the metrics will end up similar. Alternatively, try using local alignment with hisat2 (if you can, I'm not sure that's an option).

Edit: Hisat can do local alignment, hisat2 can't.

ADD REPLYlink modified 2.9 years ago • written 2.9 years ago by Devon Ryan88k

I got similar results of bowtie2 mapping better (97.42%) than Hisat2 (93.74%) when mapping raw reads (unfiltered) to assembled contigs. Which should I trust more, since it seems Hisat2 can't use a local alignment, as Devon said.

ADD REPLYlink written 2.6 years ago by rrcutler110
Please log in to add an answer.

Help
Access

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.
Powered by Biostar version 2.3.0
Traffic: 1966 users visited in the last hour