![]() |
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
BWA mapping quality score is unstable | mschatz | Bioinformatics | 0 | 09-15-2011 12:03 PM |
Question about BWA mapping quality | oiiio | Bioinformatics | 6 | 07-25-2011 05:33 PM |
BWA mapping quality scores? | kweber2 | Genomic Resequencing | 2 | 09-27-2010 04:01 PM |
Interpretation of BWA mapping quality | christophpale | Bioinformatics | 0 | 07-21-2010 04:15 AM |
bwa mapping quality | totalnew | Bioinformatics | 6 | 05-21-2010 05:50 AM |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools |
![]() |
#1 |
Junior Member
Location: San Francisco Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 5
|
![]()
Hi,
Does anyone know what negative bwa mapping quality means? I am using the aligned data from 1000 genome project (I look at this sample NA12716.mapped.ILLUMINA.bwa.CEU.low_coverage.20101123.bam). For a properly mapped pair reads, I found that the mapping quality for one read is 226 and the other is -226. Does anyone know why? When I do pileup in samtools, it excludes that read with negative mapping quality. Here is that pair reads data: ERR000573.12285810 pPR2 X 154402571 60 51M = 154402756 226 GATGCAATAAGAGATAAAGCTAGAGAGGTTAATAGAGGCCAGAACTCATAG =@%?>:@@?@>=>=@?A@>>@3>:=<=>:A>@@>=1=>;>929?>$>4@2> X0:i:1 X1:i:0 MD:Z:51 RG:Z:ERR000573 AM:i:37 NM:i:0 SM:i:37 MQ:i:60 XT:A:U BQ:Z:@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ERR000573.12285810 pPr1 X 154402756 60 9S42M = 154402571 -226 GCGAAGAAGTCAATTAGAAAGTCTTTTCAAGTTATCCAAGCAGGAGGTCTC 27=AA=8A;<?A?@>@>@@@=;>=<>>?A@>@>@:?>AA>?@>??>>=?9? X0:i:1 X1:i:0 XC:i:42 MD:Z:42 RG:Z:ERR000573 AM:i:37 NM:i:0 SM:i:37 MQ:i:60 XT:A:U BQ:Z:@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Thank you very much!! Anney |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Member
Location: united kingdom Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 63
|
![]()
Hi.
Interesting and confusing to me too. Sam manual says that field five is the mapping quality; From manual; field 5 = MAPQ Int [0,2^8-1] MAPping Quality However and interestingly, the MQ:i: tag is apparently the mapping quality of the mate/next fragment, which for your alignment are both 60 MQ i = Mapping quality of the mate/next fragment So I would also be interested to know where -226 comes from too and what exactly is MQ reporting if 226 and -226 are genuine. Another point is, if I understand and can do the math right, Mapping quality -10 x log10(probability of an error). So you would need a probability of about 1x10^25??????? Last thing; I assume the sam output reports the genome sequence not the reads, as this maps uniquely, at 100% to human genome hg19 to a unique position. So it should have a fantastic mapping score? An interested bystander. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Junior Member
Location: San Francisco Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 5
|
![]()
Thank you for the replay poisson200.
I checked BWA on its website (http://bio-bwa.sourceforge.net/). It says that it is possible one read in a pair has high mapping quality, but the other read has zero ("one read can be mapped unambiguously, but its mate falls in a tandom repeat and thus its accurate position cannot be determined"). So, I guess the negative mapping quality score means the undetermined mapping read. If so, then the flag shouldn't be "pPR2", which mean properly mapped pair-reads !? And, samtools excludes the reads with negative mapping score (in default filter) when doing pileup. Anney |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Member
Location: Cambridge Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 22
|
![]()
I believe you are looking at the template length field (field 9). The mapping quality is the 5th field and is reported to be 60 for both reads.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Junior Member
Location: San Francisco Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 5
|
![]()
oh...yeah....thanks for pointing this out
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
|
|