![]() |
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Chromosome start and end coordinates | Ooinp | Bioinformatics | 1 | 04-23-2012 11:13 AM |
How samtools mpileup uses paired end data to determine SNP phasing | bioinformer | Bioinformatics | 0 | 03-06-2012 01:19 PM |
how can i decide the exact start and end of rRNA on mitochondria | bbsinfo | Illumina/Solexa | 0 | 12-02-2011 01:54 PM |
Parsing a Chromosome sequence with start and end coordinates | empyrean | Bioinformatics | 13 | 09-10-2011 10:23 PM |
How many amounts of mRNA do you start the pair end sequencing? | Chien-Yuan Chen | RNA Sequencing | 0 | 03-02-2009 10:59 AM |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools |
![]() |
#1 |
Member
Location: Bristol, UK Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 11
|
![]()
Hi,
I'm having a problem calling a variant with NGS which has been confirmed via Sanger sequencing. I'm using samtools mpileup followed by VarScan. Bit of background The lab are doing resequencing of human candidate genes to identify rare mutations. Target enrichment is performed via HaloPlex, sequencing is done on a MiSeq with 150bp paired end reads. I am aligning reads with BWA using default PE settings againts the entire human genome (I have tried the UCSC, 1KG, and MiSeq ref genomes - all the same result) The problem In the pileup (generated with or without BAQ computation) there is a ~20bp region 'missing' Example commands samtools mpileup -f ref.fa test.bam > test_BAQ.pileup samtools mpileup -Bf ref.fa test.bam > test_NO_BAQ.pileup From positions chr1:76740134 to chr1:76740154 are not present in the pileup? The bases flanking the 'missing' region are marked by ^ (start of read segment) and $ (end of read segment). However, when I look in IGV there are plenty reads covering the 'missing' region and the variant I know is there is there clear as day! It just doesn't make it into the pileup?! Any help / advice about what is going on here would be much appreciated BW Chris Example pileup chr1 76740129 T 51 ................................................... FF:FGBFG?FGFFEGBF6F??GBGE@FB5DF?FGDFBBFGGFD.FF?G?FG chr1 76740130 G 51 ................................................... GF@FGFDFBFFFFEG?DBFBBGDF2DGFBFGDFGFFFDFGFFFDFF?FBFG chr1 76740131 G 51 ...$................................................ GG9,GFDFFFGFBEGDB?FBDGFG;EGD,F>BGGBFGFFFGGDFFFBGDFG chr1 76740132 A 50 .................................................. GG?FFDGBGFFB@G>DFFBFGFG@DGFBG?;GG?GFFFFFGFFFG>F;GF chr1 76740133 A 50 .................................................. GGFFFFFDBFDD@G>F?FBBFF>@DGF>G??FFBFGBFGBFGFFG?>,FB chr1 76740134 T 50 .$.$.$.$.$.$.$.$.$.$.$.$.$.$.$.$.$.$.$.$.$.$.$.$.$.$.$.$.$.$.$.$.$.$.$.$.$.$.$.$.$.$.$.$.$.$.$.$.$.$ >>>>>>>>>>>>9>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chr1 76740154 A 42 ^],^],^],^],^],^],^],^],^],^],^],^],^],^],^],^],^],^],^],^],^],^],^],^],^],^],^],^],^],^],^],^],^],^],^],^],^],^],^],^],^],^], B=ECAACCAEBA@BEB=;C?CCBCC;>ECAECC==>> chr1 76740155 T 42 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, EEEGEG=GBGBD@EGEBEE;EDEGGEDEEBGDEBEGBEDDGD chr1 76740156 A 51 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,^],^],^],^],^],^],^],^],^], FDDGFGDGEGEG@FGEBEGDGEEGGEGEEFGEGDFGGEDFEF@BBB@BB>9 chr1 76740157 A 51 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, FBDGFG4GEGDEEFGEDDGEGFFGGEGEEFGEGEFGGDDEGF@;DEDE@DD chr1 76740158 T 51 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, FBBGFG;GGG,EEFEEDBGDGFFGGEGBFEEEGEFGGF=DGF**DD9E@BD chr1 76740159 A 51 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, FEEGFGBGGGDDEEGE=BG;GEEDEEGFFEDEEEEEGFEEGFED@99BE>9 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Member
Location: Bristol, UK Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 11
|
![]()
OK I have found a work around
If I use the mpileup -A flag (count anomolous read pairs) then the region is included in the pileup BW Chris |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Member
Location: St. Louis Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 62
|
![]()
Chris,
I'm glad you came across the solution - it looks like there's a universal issue mapping reads in "proper" pairs at that location. Thanks for using VarScan! |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 | |
Junior Member
Location: CA Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 8
|
![]() Quote:
Any potential to get copy number information using Haloplex because of the multiple amplicon design? I understand the reads are not good as random reads from hybridization capture. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Member
Location: Atlanta Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 32
|
![]()
I am having a similar problem with samtools mpileup:
#If I use : samtools mpileup -r chr12:25398277-25398285 Sample1.bam >output1 where output1 is below: chr12 25398279 N 16 G$A$*A$C$G$A$G$CCCCCCCC BB11BACBHHHHGHF0 chr12 25398280 N 9 *GGGGGGGA 1EGG?AC01 chr12 25398281 N 9 CCCCCCCCC 1EGGA/EE These are obviously truncated lines! Why does mpileup truncate the lines in the last two columns? Any help shall be appreciated. ~Rini |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Tags |
bwa, pileup, samtools mpileup, variant calling, varscan |
Thread Tools | |
|
|