![]() |
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Impact on quality of SNP calls using samtools mpileup | myi | Bioinformatics | 3 | 03-03-2014 08:18 AM |
How to quickly rewrite MAQ calls in bam file | memento | Bioinformatics | 1 | 02-08-2012 09:19 AM |
Hi all! [SNP calls from Illumina w/o reference] | gdilla | Introductions | 0 | 08-13-2010 01:29 PM |
Supporting Reads in SAMTools SNP Calls | Lee Sam | Bioinformatics | 2 | 07-09-2010 07:16 AM |
Maq SNP calls from a large pool | mimi_lupton | Bioinformatics | 0 | 10-31-2008 09:48 AM |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools |
![]() |
#1 |
Member
Location: Boston Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 26
|
![]()
Hello,
I use the maq snp caller for snp calling on a diploid organism. The filtered maq snp report gives the most likely, 2nd likely and the 3rd likely calls. Does anybody consider 2nd and 3rd likely calls? When I do so, there is a certain percentage of 3-allele calls that are made and I would like to know how to "prune" this data. A naive approach would be to just trim the allele with the least counts, but it may not always work. Thanks, Anamika |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Tags |
maq snp |
Thread Tools | |
|
|