Go Back   SEQanswers > Bioinformatics > Bioinformatics

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fpkm differences between versions of Cufflinks zorph Bioinformatics 1 02-15-2012 02:19 PM
differences in coverage BEDtools - samtools mpileup KNS Bioinformatics 3 12-01-2011 09:55 PM
Different versions of samtools-pileup dg.pooja Bioinformatics 3 02-11-2011 08:46 AM
Tophat v1.1.4 bug - cannot handle non-numeric versions of Samtools adumitri Bioinformatics 4 01-10-2011 05:18 AM
MAQ vs BWA/SAMTools - differences in SNP calling algorithm? mard Bioinformatics 2 10-20-2010 02:17 PM

Thread Tools
Old 08-06-2014, 11:28 AM   #1
Junior Member
Location: DC

Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 3
Default Pileup differences with different SAMtools versions


Generating pileups of bacterial data sets with SAMtools 0.1.18 and 0.1.19, I have noticed differences in the pileup files. Version 0.1.18 produces pileups with greater depth. In both cases, the command line options are identical, just specifying the reference, the sample, and accepting defaults for all other options.

samtools mpileup -f reference.fasta reads.bam

Can anyone help explain what is causing the difference and offer best practice recommendations?

See examples of differences below.


samtools 0.1.18 pileup
seq1 4991 A 29 .C...,,,,,,,,,,,,+1t,..,+1t..tgg.gG !!1!!7@7A>8.0;1<.C@B+?9!#!-!!
seq1 4992 T 29 G..GG,,,,,,,,,,,,,..,..,,g.cG !90!!7@8@?;13=/4$C@A%>6&%!B!!
seq1 4993 G 29 A.$.AA,,,,,,,,,,,,,..,..,ac.a. !:1!!05,;@1/.60-,@CB(><-%!A!/
seq1 4994 G 28 ....,,,,,,,,,,,,,..,..,,a.,. !1!!3>/AE:4,5386A<<283,%!:!*
seq1 4995 A 29 GTGG,+1t,,+1t,,,,,,,,,,..,..,tg.t.^#c !&!!.:-=E24,5236ADB+<6,&!A!<!
seq1 4996 T 29 CACC,,,,,,,,,,,,,..,..,c,.c.a !%!!#9$4?-5*2/12>EC(58('3A#:!
seq1 4997 T 29 ..+5CACCG..,,,,,,,,,,,,,..,..,cc.g.g !%!!&@'>C28AB3=4E64,.,;',;$0!
seq1 4998 G 29 .$A.$.$,,,,,,,,,,,,,..,..,,,.,.c !!!!+9(1?.,97.3.><;&503)&@*5!
seq1 4999 G 27 C,,,,,,,,,,,,,..,..,,,.,.c^#, $,B77C:4@B290E424/-;1,7+/!!
seq1 5000 T 27 .,,,,,,,,,,,,,..,..,,,.,.,g +0B79C87A<190E6?42/;1,?+4!!

samtools 0.1.19 pileup
seq1 4991 A 18 .,,,,,,,,,,,,+1t,.... 17@7A>8.0;1<.C@B?9
seq1 4992 T 19 ..,,,,,,,,,,,,..... 907@8@?;13=/4C@A>6B
seq1 4993 G 18 .$.,,,,,,,,,,...... :105;@1/.60@CB><A/
seq1 4994 G 19 .,,,,,,,,,,,,..,... 13>/AE:45386A<<283:
seq1 4995 A 17 ,+1t,,,,,,,,,,...... .:=E245236ADB<6A<
seq1 4996 T 16 ,,,,,,,,,....,.. 94?52/12>EC583A:
seq1 4997 T 17 ,,,,,,,,,,,...,.. @>C28AB3=4E64.;;0
seq1 4998 G 17 ,,,,,,,,,,....,.. 91?.97.3.><;503@5
seq1 4999 G 20 ,,,,,,,,,,,,..,.,,.. B77C:4@B290E424/;17/
seq1 5000 T 22 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,..,..,,.. 0B79C87A<190E6?42/;1?4
sscd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2014, 02:28 PM   #2
Senior Member
Location: San Diego

Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 912

At first glance, it looks like the default quality filtering differs between the two, samtools 1.19 is more stringent. The ! in the quality string indicates the lower possible quality, the 1.18 version has many more than the 1.19 version, and the ! correspond to the non-consensus bases, so they are likely wrong anyway, so 1.19 is right in excluding them.
swbarnes2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2014, 06:46 AM   #3
Junior Member
Location: DC

Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 3

@swbarnes, thanks for the quick reply. That certainly explains what I am seeing. I inspected a larger sample and found SAMtools v01.19 is indeed filtering out the read bases with quality < 13.

Interesting that SAMtools 0.1.18 is not behaving the same as v0.1.19. Both versions mpileup usage show this:

-Q INT skip bases with baseQ/BAQ smaller than INT [13]
sscd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2014, 07:00 AM   #4
Junior Member
Location: DC

Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 3

Searching around a bit, the SAMtools v0.1.18 behavior when mpileup uses the Q flag is documented here:
sscd is offline   Reply With Quote

pileup, samtools

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 09:48 PM.

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