Go Back   SEQanswers > Bioinformatics > Bioinformatics

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
samtools mpileup not filtering reads that fail mapping/base quality filters tracecakes Bioinformatics 0 04-14-2015 08:11 PM
Territory Account Manager (Central Region US) Ingenuity Careers Industry Jobs! 0 03-25-2014 01:10 PM
QIAGEN RWC looking for Territory Account Manager (Central Region) Ingenuity Careers Industry Jobs! 0 03-11-2014 10:38 AM
protein coding region of transcript assembled by reference the_august Bioinformatics 3 01-29-2013 08:49 PM
Quality Checks (QC) and filtering of NGS reads before further processing Brajbio Bioinformatics 0 05-23-2011 12:38 AM

Thread Tools
Old 10-02-2015, 02:36 AM   #1
Junior Member
Location: Florence

Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1
Default Quality Filtering of assembled reads central region

Dear all,
I have ecountered some problems on my latest Miseq run with 2x300 kit (as I see from posts on the forum, is quite a common problem at the moment) and ended up with read1 and read2 with early dropping sequence quality.

I am analyzing the data now and first of all I used pear (with default settings) to join the reads, ending up with a per base quality like the one reported in image attached.

The question are:
1) first of all, should I care of the low-quality region in the middle of the assembled read? Or is it not really that bad?

2) the low quality bases at the end of the assembled are easily handled with a trimmer, I used sickle and worked fine, but how should I handle the low quality region in the middle of the assembled?

By the way, this is my first post, but I'm browsing the forum from some time now, and I want to take this occasion to thank you all for the precious information I got!!
Attached Images
File Type: png per_base_quality.png (13.3 KB, 9 views)
svito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2015, 05:04 AM   #2
Senior Member
Location: Germany

Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 215

Hi svito,
1) If I got it right, this is a plot of the merged reads, isn't it? In that case, what you are seeing is probably just an overlap of the quality drops towards the end of the individual forward/reverse reads. This is quite normal and your quality drop is not really that big. I would not care about it as long as your mapping rates are not drastically lower than expected.
2) Depending of what you're after, you could go for quality trimming before merging of the reads. But in your case I don't think quality trimming is necessary at all.
WhatsOEver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2015, 05:22 AM   #3
Senior Member
Location: East Coast USA

Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 7,079

Most of your reads still appear to be above Q24-25 so that is not so bad. Depending on what you are doing I concur with WhatsOEver that trimming may not be needed.
GenoMax is offline   Reply With Quote

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 07:49 PM.

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