SEQanswers

Go Back   SEQanswers > Bioinformatics > Bioinformatics



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Insert size distribution for SV detection BnaT Bioinformatics 1 11-12-2014 08:59 AM
BWA insert size distribution too large etwatson Bioinformatics 1 10-31-2013 01:16 PM
custom ssDNA library with strange size distribution of qPCR products pyridine Sample Prep / Library Generation 4 07-17-2013 04:18 AM
Bowtie2 insert size=0 manore Bioinformatics 2 12-26-2012 02:03 AM
Bimodal insert size distribution Pepe Bioinformatics 1 03-03-2010 05:10 AM

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-01-2015, 11:00 AM   #61
GenoMax
Senior Member
 
Location: East Coast USA

Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 7,083
Default

Can you post the cluster density (K/mm^2) for these runs and the version of chemistry you are using? It is possible that you have an overloaded run this time and that may have resulted in Q-score drops. Once the clusters become fat the instrument has trouble distinguishing them apart.

What kind of data is this (we seem to be doing some of this backwards)?
GenoMax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2015, 01:57 AM   #62
M4TTN
Member
 
Location: UK

Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 75
Default

Data in all cases is whole genome sequencing of S.cerevisiae genomic DNA (also containing mitochondiral DNA and an endogenous plasmid element). Prepared using NexteraXT using all standard conditions and sequenced with 2x300bp on MiSeq v3 chemistry. 24 samples multiplexed (and successfully demultiplexed).

The only change was the last run we used less Ampure beads during smaple prep than for first 3 runs (we used the conc recommended in the brochure for 2x250bp, whereas previously we'd used more Ampure beads) to size select larger amplicons.

We think this probably worked because we have less "duplicates" in the SAM file suggesting that fewer paired reads fully overlapped (which occurs when the inserts are shorter than 300bp). The last run was also sequenced at 350+250bp, however, so duplicates will only arise for fragments shorter than 250bp.

The cluster densities for the four runs (in order) are:

Run 1. 1399K/mm2; 90% pass filter; 33.4M clusters, 30.08 pass filter. Created lots of good quality data.
Run 2. 1212K/mm2; 92.3% pass filter; 29.15M clusters; 26.9M pass filter. Created decent data.
Run 3. 999K;mm2; 90.9% pass filter; 24.3M clusters; 22.1M pass filter. Created decent data.
Run 4. 740K/mm2; 77.8% pass filter; 18.4M clusters; 14.45 pass filter. Created data that aligns less well (75% versus 97% for other runs) and has clear quality issues and perfect read issues in PhiX library. It also looks like the bottom flowcell surface was particularly affected.

Could it be that the loading cluster density was too low, impacting clusters passing filter? 77.8% passing is very bad compared to other runs. (740K/mm2 doesn't seem that much below target loading to me though - indeed, the first run 1399, is well above target).

Yet even in those that passed, the data is crappy (in my opinion).

As an example, I attach an image of the PhiX error rate for the bottom surface for the four runs. To me, it looks like run 4 has a massive issue. The top surface is also not as good as the others in read1, but interestingly in read2 actually looks better (second image).

https://www.dropbox.com/s/uob4blluhc...ality.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/zn2v3uce3s...rface.png?dl=0

Last edited by M4TTN; 04-02-2015 at 02:09 AM.
M4TTN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2015, 01:03 AM   #63
joshquick
Junior Member
 
Location: Birmingham

Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4
Default

When you decreased the SPRI ratio you increased the insert size and we found bowtie2 behaves weirdly above 500bp inserts with the default settings. You might want to change your bowtie2 settings or try bwa-mem:

http://nickloman.github.io/2013/05/0...era-libraries/
joshquick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2015, 07:51 AM   #64
M4TTN
Member
 
Location: UK

Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 75
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by joshquick View Post
When you decreased the SPRI ratio you increased the insert size and we found bowtie2 behaves weirdly above 500bp inserts with the default settings. You might want to change your bowtie2 settings or try bwa-mem:

http://nickloman.github.io/2013/05/0...era-libraries/
Actually this is a very good point that I knew about (from reading your post earlier) but recently forgot about. It turns out that part of the poor mapping of the recent run (aside from issues with quality that Illumina are investigating) are due to the difference between running Bowtie2 in Ugene (with default settings) and my coworker running Bowtie2 on a cluster with -X 1000.

Default settings gives about 75% alignment, whereas with X-1000 we achieved 94% (still not as good as some other libraries - 97% - , so we think that probably the low overall sequence quality in the last run is affecting mapping).

Last edited by M4TTN; 04-08-2015 at 08:03 AM.
M4TTN 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 11:34 PM.


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