SEQanswers

Go Back   SEQanswers > Sequencing Technologies/Companies > 454 Pyrosequencing



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Tech Summary: Roche's 454 GS20 / FLX / Titanium ECO 454 Pyrosequencing 12 09-11-2011 07:10 AM
PubMed: Accuracy and quality assessment of 454 GS-FLX Titanium pyrosequencing. Newsbot! Literature Watch 0 05-20-2011 03:40 AM
Problems with 454 GS FLX Titanium medium volume sequencing BL82 454 Pyrosequencing 3 01-21-2011 05:08 AM
Discussion and explanation about Roche's 454 GS20 / FLX / Titanium?! edge 454 Pyrosequencing 1 10-05-2009 11:22 PM
Duplicate reads ("same start" reads) in 454 FLX/Titanium shotgun runs [c]oma 454 Pyrosequencing 20 08-28-2009 06:12 AM

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-06-2010, 06:23 AM   #1
Marcus
Junior Member
 
Location: Cork

Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8
Default Error rates in 454 FLX/Titanium reads

Hi there,

I have average quality scores from several amplicon FLX and Titanium runs. Based on these postition-specific average quality scores (Q) I want to calculate postition-specific error rates/probabilities (P). If it was Sanger sequencing I could easily use the reverse Phred formula Q=-10*log(P), but I'm not sure what to use for pyrosequencing reads. Could I safely use P=10^(-Q/10)?

I read Brockman et al. (2008 Genome Research) and they say the initial quality score from GS 20 software is based on the "...probability that the base is an overcall, given the observed signal intensity for the corresponding flow". They then propose a much more comprehensive way of scoring quality, e.g. involving oberved noise in the whole read and homopolymer counts.

Does anyone know which quality scoring algorith is acutally used in FLX/Titanium these days? And does the older FLX quality scoring differ from the newer Titanium?

Many thanks in advance for any help!

Regards,
Marcus
Marcus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2010, 11:20 PM   #2
flxlex
Moderator
 
Location: Oslo, Norway

Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 415
Default

As far as I know:

- the Brockman algorithm is the current one for quality scoring (since GS FLX and software version 1.1.03)
- the scores are on the same scaling as the PHRED score, i.e. P=10^(-Q/10)
- recent versions of 454 software (gsAssembler, gsMapper) rescore 454datasets with the old scores (this can be turned off)
flxlex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2010, 12:14 AM   #3
Marcus
Junior Member
 
Location: Cork

Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8
Default

Thanks for your answer!

So provided that the software version is not older than 1.1.03, should there be any differences at all in quality scoring between FLX and Titanium?

I have anectdotally heard (and noticed) quality differences between these two platforms, where Titanium shows worse quality. Have you noticed that as well?

Marcus
Marcus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2010, 11:11 AM   #4
flxlex
Moderator
 
Location: Oslo, Norway

Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 415
Default

Yes, same algorithm (I suppose) to determine the quality scores, but the actual quality surely is chemistry dependent. I haven't done any tests myself and am not aware of a study about this, but it would be an interesting exercise!
flxlex 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 09:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO