Go Back   SEQanswers > Bioinformatics > Bioinformatics

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
htseq-count paolo.kunder Bioinformatics 10 10-22-2014 04:45 AM
htseq-count performance dglemay Bioinformatics 8 10-23-2012 07:08 PM
Should identical reads be reduced to a single count? hingamp RNA Sequencing 21 10-05-2012 05:41 AM
htseq-count gets more reads? deepsea Bioinformatics 3 03-29-2012 11:27 AM
DEXSeq vs htseq-count/DESeq counting model jdsv Bioinformatics 2 11-20-2011 07:48 PM

Thread Tools
Old 04-26-2012, 10:22 PM   #1
Location: California

Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16
Default analysis of single and PE reads with htseq-count and DESeq


I've analyzed some single and paired-end reads that were aligned to the human genome using TopHat and then put them through the htseq-count to DESeq pipeline. A clustering analysis of the variance-stabilized transformed count data (thank you Simon!) suggests that the differences between library types (single vs paired-end) are much bigger than the very significant differences between biological conditions.

Why might the count data between single and paired-end library types be so different?


Last edited by dglemay; 04-26-2012 at 10:23 PM. Reason: grammatical error
dglemay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2012, 11:23 PM   #2
Simon Anders
Senior Member
Location: Heidelberg, Germany

Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 994

If you want to get to the bottom of this, you could, for example, redo the alignment and counting of your paired-end data but using only the fastq files from the first pass (the first end). After all, library-prep is the same for single-end and paired-end, and hence, if you simply throw away the second end, the difference should vanish. If so, the whole issue is an artifact of alignment or counting algorithms having subtly different biases when working with paired-end data. If not, it might be some other batch effect that only happens to be confounded with library type.

Also note the example in the DESeq vignette that shows how to account for such differences by introducing a blocking factor for library type. This only works if your library type is not confounded with your treatment, of course.
Simon Anders is offline   Reply With Quote

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 12:29 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO