SEQanswers

Go Back   SEQanswers > Bioinformatics > Bioinformatics



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
an error when run cufflinks masylichu Bioinformatics 6 04-19-2013 10:01 AM
Problem with agreement between cow annotation/build is screwing up my cufflinks run mmcgo002 Bioinformatics 1 12-01-2011 08:06 PM
Cufflinks and annotation file mattia Bioinformatics 6 10-14-2011 06:34 AM
How to run Tophat with annotation file masylichu Bioinformatics 2 09-06-2011 08:25 PM
Cufflinks, Cuffdiff and annotation chrisbala RNA Sequencing 8 04-05-2011 04:10 PM

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-30-2011, 11:32 AM   #1
reut
Member
 
Location: Israel

Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 19
Default Run cufflinks with or without annotation?

Hi all
From what I see in this forum, the common pipeline for Cufflinks is to run it without a reference annotation and supply the annotation only to cuffcompare.

If I run cufflinks with annotation, it will not build novel transcripts, but are there any additional considerations?
i.e. If I don't care about novel transcripts, is it better/recommended for me to run cufflinks with annotation?

thanks in advance,
Reut
reut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2011, 11:55 AM   #2
DZhang
Senior Member
 
Location: East Coast, US

Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 177
Default

Dear Reut,

The latest version of Cufflinks allow you to supply an annotation file and with two options: consider the reads that only compatible with the annotation, or building novel transcripts in addition to the annotation.

Check the online manual for details.

Douglas
www.contigexpress.com
DZhang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2011, 12:16 PM   #3
kopi-o
Senior Member
 
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 319
Default

I would think it should be better to run it with an annotation if you are not interested in novel transcripts.
kopi-o is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2011, 01:28 PM   #4
pbluescript
Senior Member
 
Location: Boston

Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 224
Default

I run it with a reference. In fact, unless you have very good coverage, I think running it with a reference is a better way to go. Unless you have split or paired end reads linking every part of a gene together, running Cufflinks without a reference annotation could cause it to split a single gene into multiple parts. Avoiding an artifact like that is more important to me than using Cufflinks to identify novel transcripts. There are other tools to use for that.
pbluescript is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2011, 01:59 AM   #5
reut
Member
 
Location: Israel

Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 19
Default Thanks!

Thank you everyone and thank you pbluescript, what you are describing is exactly what I see - when running Cufflinks without reference I see a single gene split into multiple parts.
So I will run Cufflinks only with reference.
reut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2011, 06:36 AM   #6
Hunny
Member
 
Location: Beijing, China

Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 23
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by reut View Post
Thank you everyone and thank you pbluescript, what you are describing is exactly what I see - when running Cufflinks without reference I see a single gene split into multiple parts.
So I will run Cufflinks only with reference.
I have a question here.

As mentioned in the mannul of cufflinks, "Output will include all reference transcripts as well as any novel genes and isoforms that are assembled." is for the "-g/--GTF-guide" option.

My question is if the predicted transcripts don't include the
reference transcripts
, how could I differentiate the predicted transcripts from the output of cufflinks using the -g option? It seems I could only see the novel ones, compared to the reference.

And how could you prove the "multiple parts" are artifacts and remove them?

Cheers,
Hunny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2011, 01:56 PM   #7
polyatail
Member
 
Location: New York, NY

Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 25
Default

Quote:
My question is if the predicted transcripts don't include the reference transcripts, how could I differentiate the predicted transcripts from the output of cufflinks using the -g option?
From the manual, it sounds like it will output all provided reference transcripts in addition to any novel isoforms. If I'm understanding your question correctly, it sounds like you'd be able to identify novel isoforms by subtracting the reference GTF file you provide from the Cufflinks output GTF.

Quote:
And how could you prove the "multiple parts" are artifacts and remove them?
If you load the Cufflinks output GTF file into say, the UCSC genome browser, and look at your favorite gene, you'll see that a multi-exonic transcript appears as several, smaller "fragment" transcripts--some single exon, some just a few exons--but all incomplete as compared to the reference. In theory, you could strip all of these by comparison to the reference set of transcripts, but then you'd eliminate the novel isoform discovery function of Cufflinks, and might as well run with that function disabled. The conclusion reut and pbluescript reached is that, when run with the --GTF-guide option, most of these spurious transcripts will be eliminated while still allowing novel isoform discovery.

Last edited by polyatail; 06-01-2011 at 01:57 PM. Reason: with -> when
polyatail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2011, 02:01 PM   #8
polyatail
Member
 
Location: New York, NY

Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 25
Default

Has anyone found any differences in Cufflinks output when providing a reference via -G at the TopHat step? With or without also providing a reference to Cufflinks?
polyatail 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 05:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO