SEQanswers

Go Back   SEQanswers > Applications Forums > Sample Prep / Library Generation



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"allele balance ratio" and "quality by depth" in VCF files efoss Bioinformatics 2 10-25-2011 11:13 AM
Why does "Input" sample give a sharp peak around TSS? lee_sh Illumina/Solexa 4 07-05-2011 07:51 AM
The position file formats ".clocs" and "_pos.txt"? Ist there any difference? elgor Illumina/Solexa 0 06-27-2011 07:55 AM
"Systems biology and administration" & "Genome generation: no engineering allowed" seb567 Bioinformatics 0 05-25-2010 12:19 PM
SEQanswers second "publication": "How to map billions of short reads onto genomes" ECO Literature Watch 0 06-29-2009 11:49 PM

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-10-2011, 07:28 AM   #1
mewahl
Junior Member
 
Location: United States

Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 2
Default "Concave" coverage pattern - problem with sample prep?

Hi folks,

Our lab recently sent a bunch of yeast strains off for sequencing. I've noticed that the coverage pattern (reads per position vs. position on chromosome) is relatively flat for some of the strains, but is concave for others. The image below shows an example comparing the coverage pattern from one strain (with curvature, red) to another (without, green). The effect is more pronounced for long chromosomes than short ones.



I could imagine that if reads aligned more easily near the telomeres, this would produce a concave coverage pattern, but then all strains would show the concave pattern. Because the samples are affected differently, I don't think the problem is with the read alignment.

I could imagine that damage during gDNA collection would produce a convex curvature (due to loss of distal portions of chromosome arms) in damaged samples, but can't imagine any issue with sample preparation that explain a concave pattern.

Do any of you have any ideas what could cause this curvature in some samples but not others? Thanks in advance!
mewahl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2011, 07:51 AM   #2
ETHANol
Senior Member
 
Location: Western Australia

Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 308
Default

This is a wild guess but I would bet it has to be one of two things: 1) biases generated during PCR amplification of your library. Perhaps the GC content is different near the ends of the chromosomes. Or 2) The ends of the chromosomes fragment more efficiently.
ETHANol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2011, 08:09 AM   #3
mewahl
Junior Member
 
Location: United States

Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ETHANol View Post
This is a wild guess but I would bet it has to be one of two things: 1) biases generated during PCR amplification of your library. Perhaps the GC content is different near the ends of the chromosomes. Or 2) The ends of the chromosomes fragment more efficiently.
Hmm, good idea...if there were subtle differences in the setup of individual PCRs, or in the fragmentation step for each sample, then the biases you mention could be showing up in some samples but not others. Thanks for your help!
mewahl is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off




All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO