Question: High score deletion called by XHMM shows full coverage through IGV
0
gravatar for nkausthu
2.5 years ago by
nkausthu20
nkausthu20 wrote:

Hi, I have used XHMM to identify CNVs from our exomes. But for many cases the high score deletions/duplication called by XHMM are not getting correlated with visualization of bam through IGV. If a region is called as deletion in only one individual by XHMM and when we visualize the region through IGV, the region has same coverage when compared to other exomes. Can anyone explain me why this is happening and how can i rectify this?

igv cnv xhmm • 670 views
ADD COMMENTlink modified 2.5 years ago • written 2.5 years ago by nkausthu20
0
gravatar for dariober
2.5 years ago by
dariober11k
WCIP | Glasgow | UK
dariober11k wrote:

Hard to tell from here what's going on... For one of the problematic regions, can you post a screenshot of IGV and associated records from XHMM? One possibility is that the BAM profiles you are looking at are not normalized for library size. Also, for large regions, like CNVs, it's better to convert BAM to bigwig or tdf format for visualization.

ADD COMMENTlink written 2.5 years ago by dariober11k

As you said it may be because I am using the bam which is not normalized for library size. Still we could get some hint from bam (am I right?). Xhmm result is as follow 2180 DEL X:13762483-13786394 23.91 X 13774438 201446..201462 17 32 99 99 33 11 -2.68 47.8

ADD REPLYlink modified 2.5 years ago • written 2.5 years ago by nkausthu20
0
gravatar for nkausthu
2.5 years ago by
nkausthu20
nkausthu20 wrote:

https://ibb.co/gNFWX6

ADD COMMENTlink written 2.5 years ago by nkausthu20
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: 1606 users visited in the last hour