SEQanswers

Go Back   SEQanswers > Sequencing Technologies/Companies > Illumina/Solexa



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Separate forward and reverse coverage in Artemis nivea Bioinformatics 4 12-12-2011 04:20 AM
how to define a forward or reverse read file poorphd Illumina/Solexa 3 11-22-2011 01:34 PM
How to separate coverage of forward and reverse reads on same axis? Kennels Bioinformatics 6 05-04-2011 01:12 AM
Forward strand bias? dawe Bioinformatics 6 04-05-2010 08:00 AM
forward and reverse sequance asankaf General 5 05-27-2009 08:48 AM

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-22-2008, 05:09 AM   #1
dvh
Member
 
Location: london, uk

Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 35
Default bias in mapped forward/reverse read ratios

Hi,

We see a peculiar bias in the mapping of reads in forward and reverse directions to sites in human genomic DNA. Occurs with both RNAseq and DNAseq, and with both novoalign and maq mapping. 45bp SE GAII data.

We thought there should be a 50%/50% split of reads mapping to the genome in forward and reverse directions. The ratios of ./, or A/a etc (maq pileup output format) have huge variance, much more than expected by chance.

Has anyone else seen this? Is it something to do with solexa chemistry - eg adapter ligation, PCR steps?

It is relevant for SNP calling algorithms.

thanks

david
dvh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2008, 02:58 PM   #2
bioinfosm
Senior Member
 
Location: USA

Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 482
Default

Very interesting. We saw that once, but never pursued deeper. Can you be specific about the variance you see in fwd vs rev?

I will look up and see what we generally get..
bioinfosm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2008, 03:43 AM   #3
sigusn
Member
 
Location: Cambridge, MA

Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 19
Default

I've seen this too after using sequence capture for sample prepp. and it would be interesting to get an explanation for this. I got this reply from Illuminas Tech support :
"My understanding is that by using the Nimblegen sequence capture you enrich for particular regions but it also introduces a bias in the strandednes. We normally never see a bias with regards to strand.".
But I thought the DNA eluted from the seq.cap array would all be double stranded after the PCR amplification step, and therefor no bias should bee seen.
sigusn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2008, 04:06 AM   #4
dvh
Member
 
Location: london, uk

Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 35
Default

We see bias with both sequence capture DNA, and non sequence capture RNAseq. So its not the sequence capture.
david
dvh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2008, 04:53 AM   #5
Chipper
Senior Member
 
Location: Sweden

Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 324
Default

That sounds strange. Are there any particular regions where the bias occur and is it always the same strand that gets the higher read numbers?
Chipper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2008, 08:06 AM   #6
clivey
Member
 
Location: Oxford

Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 24
Default

Not sure I understand what you mean by bias ?

Is it global bias - so that say, 70% are F and 30% are R% ?

do you have a forwards and reverse strand coverage graph ?

you should see equal F and R globally, but if you make the F and R coverage plots you might see identical coverage peaks but offset by the average insert size of your template, because any fragment has a 50% chance of going onto the surface in either orientation during cluster prep.
clivey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2008, 02:12 PM   #7
grahamheap
Junior Member
 
Location: London

Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1
Default

Just thought i would give you an idea of what we are seeing in dvh's group. Attached to this post is a graph with some data from the phix174 control lane from two separate runs but using the same library. The data we see from other libraries (all kinds of sample preps - DNA, RNA, methylation) tends to be similar to this although the change is more pronounced than in phix, probably due to lower coverage.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg phix2samplecoverage.jpg (10.4 KB, 80 views)
grahamheap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2008, 10:36 PM   #8
cgb
Member
 
Location: Cambridge

Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 50
Default

that doesn't look right.
cgb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2008, 08:32 AM   #9
bioinfosm
Senior Member
 
Location: USA

Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 482
Default

Yes, definitely something strange happening there.. we see 55-45 fwd vs reverse mapping, but its kinda uniform across the reference..
bioinfosm 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 07:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO