Question: Why IVG coverage track from bam and bigwig files looks different?
0
gravatar for biplab
2.6 years ago by
biplab100
University of California, Davis
biplab100 wrote:

Hi I am studying polyadenylation of ribosomal RNA in different yeast mutants. I am interested in knowing how does the coverage of ribosomal RNA locus in my oligo-dT purified samples changes in various mutants. After alignment by HISAT2, I converted bam file to bigwig file by deeptools with a default setting and viewed in IGV . I also viewed bam file directly in IGV they looks different. From bigwig file it seems to I have lots of read in rRNA locus. I will be really happy to know whey they took different? Looking forward to hearing from you.

rna-seq next-gen alignment • 1.4k views
ADD COMMENTlink modified 2.6 years ago by dariober11k • written 2.6 years ago by biplab100
1

I assume you have paired-end data? In that case, the bam file will make IGV print each read by itself, so the region between the two mates will not be covered. The bigwig joins the two mates and will therefore span the entire range between the two mates.

Example: Given you have 2x150bp reads and an average fragment size of 500, say an alingnment from chr1:10000-10500. The bam will be printed as 1) 10000-10150 and 2) 10350-10500 because that is the position of the individual reads. The bigwig will cover the entire 10000-10500 region.

ADD REPLYlink written 2.6 years ago by ATpoint40k

Thank you. This is how they look like. Seeing no coverage along rRNA, still does not make sense to me. Both tracks came from same bam file. ![link for igv track image][https://ibb.co/furfaS]

ADD REPLYlink modified 2.6 years ago • written 2.6 years ago by biplab100
0
gravatar for dariober
2.6 years ago by
dariober11k
WCIP | Glasgow | UK
dariober11k wrote:

Some wild guess...

bigwig file it seems to I have lots of read in rRNA locus

This may be due to some rescaling when converting bam to bigwig. For example, rescaling to have library size 10M reads will appear as having more reads compared to rescaling to have 1M reads. (Such rescaling can be useful to compare libraries sequenced with different read depth.)

I also viewed bam file directly in IGV they looks different.

This may be because deeptools applies some filtering on the raw reads? For example, on mapping quality, duplicates, etc...

Again, just guessing...

ADD COMMENTlink modified 2.6 years ago • written 2.6 years ago by dariober11k
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: 1256 users visited in the last hour