Unconfigured Ad

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • zaratieg
    Member
    • Jun 2010
    • 19

    [n00b question] best way to make whole genome windowed coverage correlation?

    Hi everyone

    I have three samples that i would like to compare for differences in coverage. Right now the data is in .bed files. I'd like to run some statistics on them but i'm afraid I don't know how to do that. My questions are the following.

    1. What is the best normalization scheme for coverage counts, to account for library size/total read count?
    1. Is there software to do the correlation quickly?
    3. I'm also trying to learn R. I can import the .bed files to GRanges, but after that I'm stumped. Anyone know a good BioConductor package for this kind of thing?

    Thank you in advance
  • dpryan
    Devon Ryan
    • Jul 2011
    • 3478

    #2
    The normalization strategy will depend a bit on the underlying nature of the experiment. If you expect most of the genomic chunks that you're looking at to be the same between samples then the procedures from DESeq or edgeR would work OK. R can generally calculate correlations pretty quickly. Did you just convert the mapped reads to BED format and then import that or are these regions with associated counts (i.e., modified BED files)?

    Comment

    • zaratieg
      Member
      • Jun 2010
      • 19

      #3
      Thanks for your answer Devon. The data are viral insertion sites, so most of the genome is empty, with around 3000 clusters with signal ranging from 1 to 300 counts. The mapped read tells me the insertion point at its 5' end, so I made bedgraph files from the bam files with bedtools genomecov -5, and bed files with bamtobed and piping it through awk to shorten the alignments to the 5' end. The library sizes were relatively similar but not enough to ignore normalization (2.0e6, 1.92e6 and 1.83e6).
      For the normalization, aren't DEseq and edgeR used for RNAseq? as you can see this is probably a very different problem.

      Comment

      Latest Articles

      Collapse

      • GATTACAT
        Reply to Nine Things a Sample Prep Scientist Thinks About Before Sequencing
        by GATTACAT
        Love this - good data definitely starts from good input, and poor input can only give relatively poor data. I particularly like the mention of Nanodrop/absorbance based methods for quantification. It's such a toss up if you'll get an accurate reading or what amounts to a randomly generated number, and a lot of library/sequencing related issues can be traced back to poor quant.
        07-01-2026, 11:43 AM
      • SEQadmin2
        Nine Things a Sample Prep Scientist Thinks About Before Sequencing
        by SEQadmin2


        I’m not a sequencing expert. I’m a purification scientist who uses NGS to evaluate workflows my group develops. With this perspective, we think about the sample first and the NGS workflow second. The sequencer is an exceptionally honest reporter, but it can only report on what you give it, so whether you get clean, interpretable data from an NGS workflow is largely determined before you begin.

        Here are nine questions we think about, in roughly the order they matter, before...
        06-18-2026, 07:11 AM

      ad_right_rmr

      Collapse

      News

      Collapse

      Topics Statistics Last Post
      Started by SEQadmin2, 07-02-2026, 11:08 AM
      0 responses
      17 views
      0 reactions
      Last Post SEQadmin2  
      Started by SEQadmin2, 06-30-2026, 05:37 AM
      0 responses
      18 views
      0 reactions
      Last Post SEQadmin2  
      Started by SEQadmin2, 06-26-2026, 11:10 AM
      0 responses
      21 views
      0 reactions
      Last Post SEQadmin2  
      Started by SEQadmin2, 06-17-2026, 06:09 AM
      0 responses
      54 views
      0 reactions
      Last Post SEQadmin2  
      Working...