Question: Very low Bisulfite seq mapping efficiency (~0%) for paired end.
0
gravatar for cjgunase
2.3 years ago by
cjgunase30
United States
cjgunase30 wrote:

Hello,

I have bisulfite converted fastq files (WGBS) from paired-end reads. when I used bismark using the default setting for paired-end data mapping efficiency is almost zero. Then I tried using read1 and the mapping efficiency is 85%.

I have put my mapping report in this link. If anyone can give suggestions to improve the paired-end mapping efficiency I would be really grateful.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B8CAUxn-nmdFMThJWkQzX1MwNUE?usp=sharing

Thank you

ADD COMMENTlink written 2.3 years ago by cjgunase30

From a cursory look at the metrics, it looks like there's an issue with read #2. Have you run FastQC on it?

ADD REPLYlink written 2.3 years ago by Devon Ryan93k

yes. FastQC looks perfect on both files. found possible reasons in http://seqanswers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40496

we believe it is over clustering which can happen in read2.

Not sure how to prepare a report so we can request re-sequencing. If you can suggest some tools and packages to do more investigation, that would be great.

Thank you

ADD REPLYlink modified 2.3 years ago • written 2.3 years ago by cjgunase30
1

Actually, your files are in a different order, so the first read in the #1 file is not the mate of the first read in the #2 file.

ADD REPLYlink written 2.3 years ago by Devon Ryan93k

Thanks Devon,

Can you kindly point out how did you find this so I can narrow down where the problem originated? Is there anything to correct this?

Thank you

ADD REPLYlink written 2.3 years ago by cjgunase30

I think BBMap has a tool to resync paired-end files.

ADD REPLYlink written 2.3 years ago by Devon Ryan93k

Thankx Devon, I tried BBMap and this script worked even better. now its mapping in paired-end with ~85% https://github.com/enormandeau/Scripts/blob/master/fastqCombinePairedEnd.py

Thank you for your effort to help solve this issue.

ADD REPLYlink modified 2.3 years ago • written 2.3 years ago by cjgunase30

I did a comparison as you said. Thank you for the idea. I am going to reorder the fastq files.

Not aligning sample(1F52S)

[gunasekara@sphere fq0050]$ head -1 split.10m.GTEX-1F52S-3026-SM-D5A5F_1.fq @E00591:56:H2LTKCCXY:3:1102:31527:12683 1:N:0

[gunasekara@sphere fq0050]$ head -1 split.10m.GTEX-1F52S-3026-SM-D5A5F_2.fq @E00591:56:H2LTKCCXY:3:1102:20841:12736 2:N:0

Aligning sample (14PQA)

[gunasekara@sphere 1F52S_test]$ head -1 split.10m.GTEX-14PQA-0926-SM-D5A5H_1.fq0000 @E00591:57:H2LNVCCXY:6:1101:23937:4069 1:N:0

[gunasekara@sphere 1F52S_test]$ head -1 split.10m.GTEX-14PQA-0926-SM-D5A5H_2.fq0000 @E00591:57:H2LNVCCXY:6:1101:23937:4069 2:N:0

ADD REPLYlink written 2.3 years ago by cjgunase30
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: 2125 users visited in the last hour