SEQanswers

Go Back   SEQanswers > Bioinformatics > Bioinformatics



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Threshold quality score to determine the quality read of ILLUMINA reads problem edge Illumina/Solexa 35 11-02-2015 11:31 AM
Illumina quality score whereisshe Bioinformatics 3 11-26-2010 07:45 AM
Threshold quality score to determine the quality read of ILLUMINA reads problem edge General 1 09-13-2010 03:22 PM
Questions about solexa quality score! baohua100 Bioinformatics 23 05-21-2009 12:36 AM
Questions about solexa quality score baohua100 Bioinformatics 1 06-17-2008 09:09 AM

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-12-2011, 07:46 PM   #1
zeam
Member
 
Location: USA

Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 37
Default Questions on the updated illumina quality score

The quality of my datum from an updated illumina system is sanger/illumina 1.9 which confused me very much.Could I just treated them as sanger format?
Can somebody familiar with this can give me some details about this kind of encoding pattern?
zeam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2011, 09:06 PM   #2
BAMseek
Senior Member
 
Location: St. Louis, MO, USA

Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 124
Default

Hi zeam,

I would suggest looking at the changes made to CASAVA 1.8 - there is a nice post about it here.

I know they have switched the quality encodings from Phred+64 to the more standard Sanger encoding (ASCII = Phred+33) starting in CASAVA 1.8.

Justin
BAMseek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2011, 03:32 AM   #3
Robby
Member
 
Location: Germany

Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 68
Default

@zeam: The new Illumina quality scores are in Sanger format and encode a Phred quality score from 0 to 93 using ASCII 33 to 126.

But we are confused with the new quality scores as well. We use BWA for mapping. BWA has the extra option -I for quality scores in the Illumina 1.3+ read format (quality equals ASCII-64). I assume, that without that option BWA expect the old Illumina format. Is that correct? How do we have do use BWA correctly with the new Sanger format?

Thanks Robby
Robby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2011, 07:37 AM   #4
GenoMax
Senior Member
 
Location: East Coast USA

Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,813
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeam View Post
The quality of my datum from an updated illumina system is sanger/illumina 1.9 which confused me very much.Could I just treated them as sanger format?
Can somebody familiar with this can give me some details about this kind of encoding pattern?
I assume you are referring to pipeline v.1.8 (I am sure there is a v. 1.9 somewhere in illumina labs in alpha/beta testing).
If that is correct then your quality values will be in sanger format. You will also discover that if your facility uses v.3 chemistry then the valid range of quality values has been expanded beyond the previous max value of 40. You will see quality values of 41 (and up at some point in time), which are now possible.
GenoMax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2011, 01:21 PM   #5
fpepin
Member
 
Location: Berkeley

Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 30
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robby View Post
But we are confused with the new quality scores as well. We use BWA for mapping. BWA has the extra option -I for quality scores in the Illumina 1.3+ read format (quality equals ASCII-64). I assume, that without that option BWA expect the old Illumina format. Is that correct? How do we have do use BWA correctly with the new Sanger format?
Not quite. They haven't updated the BWA documentation to say that that 1.3+ should be 1.3-1.7. With 1.8, just don't use the -I and you'll be doing just fine.
fpepin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2011, 01:02 AM   #6
maricu
Junior Member
 
Location: denmark

Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 8
Default

Hi all,

I noticed that BWA assigns mapping quality of 0 when it finds a "J" (or at least a bunch of them) in the quality string. So far I've opted for changing al J to I and then map with the default BWA so it assumes is sanger. I think a patch will be needed to correct this bug.

Let me know if you have observed this as well.
maricu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2011, 12:08 PM   #7
thk2008
Junior Member
 
Location: new york

Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenoMax View Post
I assume you are referring to pipeline v.1.8 (I am sure there is a v. 1.9 somewhere in illumina labs in alpha/beta testing).
If that is correct then your quality values will be in sanger format. You will also discover that if your facility uses v.3 chemistry then the valid range of quality values has been expanded beyond the previous max value of 40. You will see quality values of 41 (and up at some point in time), which are now possible.
Hi,

Are the scores on a different scale or are there just more of them? I want to filter scores with a cutoff of 20. Previously, with the Phred+64 scores I would test with ASCII-64 > 20. So, can I do this with the Phred+33 scores, such as, ASCII-33 > 20?

Thanks,
Thadeous
thk2008 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
fastq quality, sanger/illumina 1.9

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 07:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO