SEQanswers

Go Back   SEQanswers > Applications Forums > RNA Sequencing



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Can Cuffdiff treat paired-end and single-end reads at the same time? zun RNA Sequencing 3 06-12-2012 06:37 PM
50 bp Single end Vs 100 bp Single end Vs 50 bp Paired end dhanapala RNA Sequencing 4 06-08-2012 06:09 PM
Downstream analysis with Single end and Paired end with Hiseq dhanapala RNA Sequencing 4 06-08-2012 10:08 AM
RNA-seq: Replicates, single-end, paired-end story pasta Bioinformatics 2 07-05-2011 12:51 AM
Does Cufflinks support single-end and paired end data together ? ersenkavak Bioinformatics 1 10-22-2010 08:26 AM

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-24-2012, 10:21 AM   #1
nullalleles
Junior Member
 
Location: Michigan

Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5
Question paired-end vs. single end for differential expression analysis

There are a variety of posts suggesting either single-end or paired-end mRNA-sequencing is better for differential expression analysis. I have noticed many people defaulting to paired-end reads, (even for RNA-seq, without assembly), but the reasons are not clear.

Is anyone aware of work that has been done to robustly address this question (perhaps with Illumina)?

It would be interesting to know the differences in costs, relative to alignable bases, as well as if there are any benefits of one or another solely for downstream differential expression analysis.
nullalleles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2012, 07:43 PM   #2
Torst
Senior Member
 
Location: The University of Melbourne, AUSTRALIA

Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 275
Default

I think there are a few reasons people use PE for RNA-Seq:

1. Most sequencing centres only do PE 100bp so there is no choice

2. Illumina pricing PE doesn't cost that much more than SE (changing with MiSeq)

3. Many people want to do DGE, but may want to also denovo assemble, where PE is better

4. PE reads might be more uniquely alignable to the genome than a SE read. And for DGE, that is important. However PE does not give more statistical power than SE, as all that matters is counting tags, and a PE reads and a SE read both count as a single tag.

FYI - for bacteria, we try to use SE 50bp for RNA-Seq, as we don't have isoform/splice variant issues, and 50bp is enough to map uniquely.
Torst is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2013, 02:40 AM   #3
ymc
Senior Member
 
Location: Hong Kong

Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 497
Default

PE is also better in finding fusion genes.
ymc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2013, 07:58 AM   #4
vehuardo
Member
 
Location: oslo

Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 11
Default 50 bp single end sequencing

Hi Torst,

I see this reply of yours is rather old, but IŽd like to follow up on this: do you use 50 bp SE sequencing for bacterial RNA-seq?

I am doing some bacterial RNA-seq myself, ran a few samples on MiSeq 2x150. I will now do more samples on the HiSeq, but not really sure that 2x100 is worth the additional cost....

Best,

Vegard

Quote:
Originally Posted by Torst View Post
I think there are a few reasons people use PE for RNA-Seq:

1. Most sequencing centres only do PE 100bp so there is no choice

2. Illumina pricing PE doesn't cost that much more than SE (changing with MiSeq)

3. Many people want to do DGE, but may want to also denovo assemble, where PE is better

4. PE reads might be more uniquely alignable to the genome than a SE read. And for DGE, that is important. However PE does not give more statistical power than SE, as all that matters is counting tags, and a PE reads and a SE read both count as a single tag.

FYI - for bacteria, we try to use SE 50bp for RNA-Seq, as we don't have isoform/splice variant issues, and 50bp is enough to map uniquely.
vehuardo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2013, 09:10 AM   #5
james hadfield
Moderator
Cambridge, UK
Community Forum
 
Location: Cambridge, UK

Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 221
Default

I'd recommend SE50bp for most DGE experiments as they are cheap and plentiful. More sample replicates is better than more reads to estimate within group variability better. We have done work on this but need ot pull our fingers out and publish it.

10-20M SE50bp reads is what I tell people I work with.
james hadfield is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2013, 09:28 AM   #6
bruce01
Senior Member
 
Location: .

Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 157
Default

Would LOVE to see the paper you refer to James!
bruce01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2013, 09:44 AM   #7
chadn737
Senior Member
 
Location: US

Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 392
Default

If you are working on a well sequenced genome and can map to a reference, then there really is no need to do paired-end if your only goal is differential expression.
chadn737 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2013, 12:51 PM   #8
vehuardo
Member
 
Location: oslo

Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 11
Default

Thanks for your quick response, James. Thats very informative. Surprisingly hard to come by any clear advice or common views on this topic.

Looking forward to the paper!

Cheers
vehuardo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2013, 03:14 PM   #9
rcrystal
Junior Member
 
Location: california, usa

Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 6
Default

Hi- the paper that introduces RSEM (Li and Dewey(2011). RSEM: accurate transcript quantification from RNA-Seq data with or without a reference genome. BMC Bioinformatics. 12: 323.) suggests that large amounts of single-end reads are the best for accurate gene level abundance estimates. However, if you're looking at isoforms, they recommend paired-end reads.

Apologies for not linking to the paper, first post, not sure how everything works yet!
rcrystal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2013, 09:46 PM   #10
whataBamBam
Member
 
Location: Italy

Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 27
Default

I have some data from PE Rna-Seq which was assembled de novo. When the guys at the sequencing centre aligned the reads back to the transcripts they just concatenated the fastq files together and aligned it as single end.

I can see this because I can see in the bam file the command they used to run the alignment. Does anyone know why they might have done this?

I have seen threads on here where people have suggested that if poor mapping is observed when mapping as paired end to try just concatenating the reads together and aligning as single end.
whataBamBam is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
differential expression, illumina, paired-end, rna-seq, single end

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 07:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO