SEQanswers

Go Back   SEQanswers > Bioinformatics > Bioinformatics



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Merging non-overlapping paired end reads karenr Illumina/Solexa 9 12-16-2016 06:02 PM
Merging illumina V4 paired end reads rEDI Illumina/Solexa 8 09-09-2016 08:10 AM
Merging paired end reads for BLAST JJenks Bioinformatics 8 05-23-2013 07:43 AM
Illumina Paired End Reads General Question skiguy Illumina/Solexa 9 02-28-2013 04:43 PM
Bowtie Illumina paired end reads alignment empyrean Bioinformatics 3 09-20-2011 09:51 AM

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-24-2017, 05:51 AM   #1
linudz
Junior Member
 
Location: Rome

Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3
Default A question on Illumina paired-end reads alignment. Merging from different samples

Hi folks, I have a question on how to better merge paired-end reads coming from different samples. Basically, we do align genome resequencing fastq with bwa mem, and compress the resulting .sam file into a .bam.

If we have to merge two different samples, there are basically two ways. The first is to merge the fastqs and align the resulting file, the second is to make use of samtools merge to merge the .bam files.

My concern is whether the two procedures are equally valid, or there is some relevant difference in the outcome.

I think that everything revolves around the functioning of the Burrows Wheeler Transform Alignment. I have broadly understood the application of the BWT and of the indexing, but I still wonder if the number of reads affects the results of the alignment, or each read is aligned independently.

Can anyone give me more insights on this?
linudz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2017, 06:04 AM   #2
GenoMax
Senior Member
 
Location: East Coast USA

Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,494
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by linudz View Post
Hi folks, I have a question on how to better merge paired-end reads coming from different samples. Basically, we do align genome resequencing fastq with bwa mem, and compress the resulting .sam file into a .bam.

If we have to merge two different samples, there are basically two ways. The first is to merge the fastqs and align the resulting file, the second is to make use of samtools merge to merge the .bam files.

My concern is whether the two procedures are equally valid, or there is some relevant difference in the outcome.
Either way should be fine after you take the "note" below into account.

Note: When you are referencing "merging samples" are you referring to technical replicates of the same sample? Merging would be appropriate only in that case. If "samples" are true biological replicates then you would want to keep them separate for downstream analysis.

Quote:
but I still wonder if the number of reads affects the results of the alignment, or each read is aligned independently.

Can anyone give me more insights on this?
Each read pair is independently aligned to the reference so there is no effect of the amount of data on actual alignments.
GenoMax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2017, 12:24 AM   #3
linudz
Junior Member
 
Location: Rome

Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3
Default

Thank you very much for your answer. This is going to be done on replicates of the same sample, so it should apply. Thanks again
linudz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2017, 03:35 AM   #4
GenoMax
Senior Member
 
Location: East Coast USA

Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,494
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by linudz View Post
Thank you very much for your answer. This is going to be done on replicates of the same sample, so it should apply. Thanks again
Just want to re-emphasize. Are these technical replicates or biological? Merging data is only appropriate for technical replicates.
GenoMax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2017, 10:16 AM   #5
Brian Bushnell
Super Moderator
 
Location: Walnut Creek, CA

Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 2,695
Default

Because technical replicates could have different insert sizes, and the average (or estimated) insert size can have an effect on alignment, you may get different results even for technical replicates between merging prior to mapping versus merging after mapping. In many cases this difference is trivial and in general mapping the reads independently is not guaranteed to give you an optimal answer with respect to insert size anyway, since there is an order dependency, but it's something to be aware of.
Brian Bushnell is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
burrowswheelertransform, bwa, illumina, 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 02:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO