![]() |
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Mugsy - passing options to nucmer | lmolokin | Bioinformatics | 0 | 04-13-2016 11:57 AM |
Low cluster Passing Filter Percentage | justinjun | Illumina/Solexa | 2 | 06-01-2015 07:23 AM |
Passing named pipe to samtools mpileup | kjpr | Bioinformatics | 0 | 01-08-2014 04:06 AM |
sequencing artifacts passing GATK's ApplyRecalibration filters | efoss | Bioinformatics | 4 | 04-04-2012 08:55 AM |
acceptable -c threshold for cuffdiff? | ae_ucla | RNA Sequencing | 3 | 03-23-2011 06:42 AM |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools |
![]() |
#1 |
Member
Location: uk Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 14
|
![]()
I am running some bisulfite converted amplicon-seq libraries (Fluidigm Access Array) on a MiSeq with version2 300-cycle reagents without PhiX (I will be spiking in 5% PhiX in future runs). As this is a low diversity pool and it has been bisulfite treated, I have been expecting lower than normal quality scores, however, I am seeing a rather low %PF. I have run two pools so far which have the following run metrics:
cluster density %PF AVG%Q30 Run1 935K/mm2 75.93% 88.84% Run2 695K/mm2 65.4% 85.36% I am not sure whether I should be concerned about the low %PF or whether it is expected for bisulfite converted amplicon libraries. Is there anything I can do to help increase the %PF? Can I still continue with analysing the resulting FASTQs from these runs or is that a bad idea? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Edit: I checked the optic images and they not overclustered. The first 22 bp of my insert is the Fluidigm sequencing primer and because the %PF is determined after the first 25 cycles the machine might 'think' all the libraries/clusters are homogenous fooling it into determining the run as being overclustered and giving a low %PF. Does this reasoning seem like an explanation? Edit2: Yield of the first run was 5.28Gbp and 4.07Gbp and Illumina advertise the maximum v2 yield as 5.1Gb, suggesting most clusters are in actuality passing filter. Last edited by dross11; 05-11-2017 at 10:00 AM. Reason: reinstated last edit |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Senior Member
Location: CT Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 243
|
![]()
spiking in phiX should increase your pf% but those numbers aren't horrible given you didn't spike in. For my amplicon runs, I spike in 15% phiX and usually see ~80-90% pf
No reason not to use this data, what's passed filter and been demultiplexed should be fine
__________________
Microbial ecologist, running a sequencing core. I have lots of strong opinions on how to survey communities, pretty sure some are even correct. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Senior Member
Location: Germany Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 215
|
![]()
Do you need the fluidigm seq primer for anything in the downstream processing? If not, I would suggest to run 10-20 dark cycles (depends if the primer seq is really at the start of every fragment) in the sequencing protocol. If you have a normal seq complexity after the primer, you will not run into any problems in terms of cluster identification.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Member
Location: uk Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 14
|
![]()
I performed a run today. I spiked in 5% PhiX and the %PF is at 73.49% and quality is at ~94% with a cluster density of ~1100K/mm2. I'll try 15% next time but I am fairly certain the lowish %PF is due to the sequencing primers presence within my insert. I will also look into performing 15 dark cycles next time round too (this is really very clever).
Thank you for your help and reassurance ![]() Last edited by dross11; 05-12-2017 at 09:26 AM. Reason: More info |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
|
|