Go Back   SEQanswers > Bioinformatics > Bioinformatics

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Introducing BBMap, a new short-read aligner for DNA and RNA Brian Bushnell Bioinformatics 24 07-07-2014 10:37 AM
tophat/cufflinks with different read lengths libraries linsson RNA Sequencing 0 07-03-2012 11:21 AM
Mate pairs contaminated with paired ends - impact on assembly? reithme Bioinformatics 2 12-14-2009 12:35 AM

Thread Tools
Old 06-01-2018, 11:09 AM   #61
Location: OH, USA

Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 17

Thanks for your quick reply. I ran a test run with both the references in the same command.
rajarapupriya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2018, 06:59 AM   #62
Junior Member
Location: New Orleans, LA

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3

Hi Brian,

I'm trying to use bbsplit to separate rnaseq reads from two mixed fungal samples. I'm using the individual transcriptomes as references. I was getting some unexpected results. It seemed that more reads were unambiguously mapping to the reference that is listed first, so I swapped the order of the references and the results changed dramatically. I have ambiguous2=toss, but it seems like it's still using the first best site. Below are my commands and refstats output. Is there anything I'm doing wrong?

Code: ref=53.fasta,17.fasta \
        in=53_30_r1_S7_R1_001.fastq.gz in2=53_30_r1_S7_R2_001.fastq.gz \
        out_17=map17_53_30_r1_S7_R#_001.fastq.gz \
        out_53=map53_53_30_r1_S7_R#_001.fastq.gz \
        refstats=53_30_r1_S7.stats ambiguous2=toss

#name	%unambiguousReads	unambiguousMB	%ambiguousReads	ambiguousMB	unambiguousReads	ambiguousReads
53	41.51013	1625.01508	57.30665	2219.25878	11241396	15519266
17	1.13394	44.03152	57.30665	2219.25878	307084	15519266         ref=17.fasta,53.fasta \
        in=53_30_r1_S7_R1_001.fastq.gz in2=53_30_r1_S7_R2_001.fastq.gz \
        out_17=map17_53_30_r1_S7_R#_001.fastq.gz \
        out_53=map53_53_30_r1_S7_R#_001.fastq.gz \
        refstats=53_30_r1_S7.stats2 ambiguous2=toss

#name	%unambiguousReads	unambiguousMB	%ambiguousReads	ambiguousMB	unambiguousReads	ambiguousReads
53	21.37940	838.36051	67.54242	2623.22348	5789774	18291224
17	11.02890	426.72088	67.54242	2623.22348	2986746	18291224

Last edited by GenoMax; 08-20-2018 at 09:03 AM.
kcamnairb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2018, 02:48 AM   #63
Junior Member
Location: Hanoi

Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 1
Default Contamination from human genome?


I am working on non-model fish RNA-seq data, I am considering remove human contamination from reads, is this feasible since there is number of orthologs between human and fish?
Is there any recommendation regarding choice of "-minratio" for this case? It seems that 0.56 maybe too low? (I don't have reference genome for this non-model fish, by the way)

P.s: I think there should be different usage strategy of sensitivity or specificity for the case of binning (having 2 reference, i.e host vs contaminant, both have comparative alignment score to judge) AND for the case of decontaminating (only have the reference of contaminant, judgement only based on alignment to contaminant reference).

Thank you very much for your suggestion !
phuongbigbig is offline   Reply With Quote

aligners, bbsplit, binning, contaminant, metagenome

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 03:43 PM.

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