Seqanswers Leaderboard Ad

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Pileup differences with different SAMtools versions

    Hello,

    Generating pileups of bacterial data sets with SAMtools 0.1.18 and 0.1.19, I have noticed differences in the pileup files. Version 0.1.18 produces pileups with greater depth. In both cases, the command line options are identical, just specifying the reference, the sample, and accepting defaults for all other options.

    samtools mpileup -f reference.fasta reads.bam

    Can anyone help explain what is causing the difference and offer best practice recommendations?

    See examples of differences below.

    Thanks!

    samtools 0.1.18 pileup
    seq1 4991 A 29 .C...,,,,,,,,,,,,+1t,..,+1t..tgg.gG !!1!!7@7A>8.0;1<.C@B+?9!#!-!!
    seq1 4992 T 29 G..GG,,,,,,,,,,,,,..,..,,g.cG !90!!7@8@?;13=/4$C@A%>6&%!B!!
    seq1 4993 G 29 A.$.AA,,,,,,,,,,,,,..,..,ac.a. !:1!!05,;@1/.60-,@CB(><-%!A!/
    seq1 4994 G 28 ....,,,,,,,,,,,,,..,..,,a.,. !1!!3>/AE:4,5386A<<283,%!:!*
    seq1 4995 A 29 GTGG,+1t,,+1t,,,,,,,,,,..,..,tg.t.^#c !&!!.:-=E24,5236ADB+<6,&!A!<!
    seq1 4996 T 29 CACC,,,,,,,,,,,,,..,..,c,.c.a !%!!#9$4?-5*2/12>EC(58('3A#:!
    seq1 4997 T 29 ..+5CACCG..,,,,,,,,,,,,,..,..,cc.g.g !%!!&@'>C28AB3=4E64,.,;',;$0!
    seq1 4998 G 29 .$A.$.$,,,,,,,,,,,,,..,..,,,.,.c !!!!+9(1?.,97.3.><;&503)&@*5!
    seq1 4999 G 27 C,,,,,,,,,,,,,..,..,,,.,.c^#, $,B77C:4@B290E424/-;1,7+/!!
    seq1 5000 T 27 .,,,,,,,,,,,,,..,..,,,.,.,g +0B79C87A<190E6?42/;1,?+4!!

    samtools 0.1.19 pileup
    seq1 4991 A 18 .,,,,,,,,,,,,+1t,.... 17@7A>8.0;1<.C@B?9
    seq1 4992 T 19 ..,,,,,,,,,,,,..... 907@8@?;13=/4C@A>6B
    seq1 4993 G 18 .$.,,,,,,,,,,...... :105;@1/.60@CB><A/
    seq1 4994 G 19 .,,,,,,,,,,,,..,... 13>/AE:45386A<<283:
    seq1 4995 A 17 ,+1t,,,,,,,,,,...... .:=E245236ADB<6A<
    seq1 4996 T 16 ,,,,,,,,,....,.. 94?52/12>EC583A:
    seq1 4997 T 17 ,,,,,,,,,,,...,.. @>C28AB3=4E64.;;0
    seq1 4998 G 17 ,,,,,,,,,,....,.. 91?.97.3.><;503@5
    seq1 4999 G 20 ,,,,,,,,,,,,..,.,,.. B77C:4@B290E424/;17/
    seq1 5000 T 22 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,..,..,,.. 0B79C87A<190E6?42/;1?4

  • #2
    At first glance, it looks like the default quality filtering differs between the two, samtools 1.19 is more stringent. The ! in the quality string indicates the lower possible quality, the 1.18 version has many more than the 1.19 version, and the ! correspond to the non-consensus bases, so they are likely wrong anyway, so 1.19 is right in excluding them.

    Comment


    • #3
      @swbarnes, thanks for the quick reply. That certainly explains what I am seeing. I inspected a larger sample and found SAMtools v01.19 is indeed filtering out the read bases with quality < 13.

      Interesting that SAMtools 0.1.18 is not behaving the same as v0.1.19. Both versions mpileup usage show this:

      -Q INT skip bases with baseQ/BAQ smaller than INT [13]

      Comment


      • #4
        Searching around a bit, the SAMtools v0.1.18 behavior when mpileup uses the Q flag is documented here:

        https://github.com/samtools/samtools/wiki/FAQ

        Comment

        Latest Articles

        Collapse

        • seqadmin
          Strategies for Sequencing Challenging Samples
          by seqadmin


          Despite advancements in sequencing platforms and related sample preparation technologies, certain sample types continue to present significant challenges that can compromise sequencing results. Pedro Echave, Senior Manager of the Global Business Segment at Revvity, explained that the success of a sequencing experiment ultimately depends on the amount and integrity of the nucleic acid template (RNA or DNA) obtained from a sample. “The better the quality of the nucleic acid isolated...
          03-22-2024, 06:39 AM
        • seqadmin
          Techniques and Challenges in Conservation Genomics
          by seqadmin



          The field of conservation genomics centers on applying genomics technologies in support of conservation efforts and the preservation of biodiversity. This article features interviews with two researchers who showcase their innovative work and highlight the current state and future of conservation genomics.

          Avian Conservation
          Matthew DeSaix, a recent doctoral graduate from Kristen Ruegg’s lab at The University of Colorado, shared that most of his research...
          03-08-2024, 10:41 AM

        ad_right_rmr

        Collapse

        News

        Collapse

        Topics Statistics Last Post
        Started by seqadmin, Yesterday, 06:37 PM
        0 responses
        11 views
        0 likes
        Last Post seqadmin  
        Started by seqadmin, Yesterday, 06:07 PM
        0 responses
        10 views
        0 likes
        Last Post seqadmin  
        Started by seqadmin, 03-22-2024, 10:03 AM
        0 responses
        51 views
        0 likes
        Last Post seqadmin  
        Started by seqadmin, 03-21-2024, 07:32 AM
        0 responses
        67 views
        0 likes
        Last Post seqadmin  
        Working...
        X