How to perform normalization when converting ATAC bam file to bigwig file using deeptools for IGV visualization
2
0
Entering edit mode
4 months ago
sir.outman • 0

Dear fellows:

I have some ATAC bam files(A549 in drugged and control condition) which have different sequence depths that need to convert to bigwig.

The tools I use for conversion is deeptools bamCoverage, and I use deeptools multiBamSummary to generate scale factor for each bam file. then I use bamCoverage with --normalizeUsing RPGC and --scaleFactor of each bam file to generate bigwig.

After I got the bigwig file of each sample, I load them into IGV. My propose is to display different heights of peak pileups(eg. higher peak pileups in treated samples and lower pileups on control) at target differential access positions(already known) between those samples.

Here are my questions:

  1. Does my normalization way(use RPGC and scale factors when converting bam to bigwig by bamCoverage) make sense?
  2. when I load already normalized bigwig files into IGV without adjusting any IGV params, does the displayed track height of each sample could give the expected trend(the higher track means actual reads pileups and vice versa), or do I still need to use IGV's function autoscale or adjust data range to some range to let the peak fit the trend?

Here are two figures related to my question: Fig. A and Fig.B both use normalized bigwig tracks by RPGC and a scaling factor of positive and negative treated and control samples. the red rectangle area means the expected differential access positions will show the different track heights.

In Fig A, I use IGV autoscale function to 3 tracks; In Fig B, I set the data range of 3 tracks both to 50. The position 1 in two figures gives the conflict interpretation: in Fig A auto-scaled track, their height seems the same; but in Fig B tracks be set the same data range, the negative_treated track has the highest peak.

<h5>Fig. A: IGV auto scaled</h5>

ABCC3_autoscale

<h5>Fig. B: IGV set the same data range to 50</h5>

ABCC3_same_range

Can I have your advice on solving my issues?

Many thanks!

bamCoverage deeptools bigwig IGV ATAC • 641 views
ADD COMMENT
1
Entering edit mode
4 months ago

Yes, the RPGC normalization make sense.

Considering the visualization within IGV, I would recommend to using either option #2 or the 'group autoscale' feature (select all tracks, right click, left click on group autoscale). With that setting, all tracks will have the same range, like in your second example except that the range will automatically fit all the data. In both option #2 and <group autoscale>, higher peak means more coverage which is the correct interpretation.

ADD COMMENT
0
Entering edit mode

Hi @Carlo Yague,

Thank you so much for the quick reply!

One more detail please help me to confirm: when normalizing, I should use RPGC normalization alone, or RPGC + scaling factor of each bam?

ADD REPLY
0
Entering edit mode

Ha sorry, I misread this in the original post. You should use either RPGC or a scaling factor (which I guess is based on the total number of read mapped ?), not both (otherwise you would normalize twice.

In most cases, RPGC is good enough normalization for visualization purpose, but the method ATpoint mention using (robust) scaling factor is more robust to difference inlibrary composition and will be more quantitative.

ADD REPLY
0
Entering edit mode

Thank you so much for your clear explanation @Carlo Yague and the more robust normalization method of AT point.

ADD REPLY
1
Entering edit mode
4 months ago
ATpoint 60k

I suggest to not use any of these per-million scaling and do this instead:

ATAC-seq sample normalization

ADD COMMENT

Login before adding your answer.

Traffic: 1779 users visited in the last hour
Help About
FAQ
Access RSS
API
Stats

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.

Powered by the version 2.3.6