Seqanswers Leaderboard Ad

Collapse

Announcement

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

  • samtools: BAQ differs between mpileup and calmd

    Hello,

    Though samtools is a wonderful tool, the other day I came across a behavior that left me confused. I have found some reads in an Illumina dataset where the BAQ calculation appears to give a different result depending on whether it is performed by samtools mpileup or samtools calmd. This contradicts my assumption that BAQ-adjusted base qualities would be the same regardless of whether mpileup or calmd is used. (I am running samtools version 0.1.17 on Linux.)

    To demonstrate, I put one such read into its own BAM file and ran mpileup and calmd:

    $ samtools view my.bam
    SEQUENCER02_165:1:1207:8548:44865 99 chr3.fa 178936033 254 50M = 178936190 207 AAATGACAAAGAACAGCTCAAAGCAATTTCTACACGAGATCCTCTCTCTG CCCFFFFFHHHHHJJJJJJIJJJIJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJIJIJJJJJJJ BC:Z:CGATGT XD:Z:50 SM:i:3 AS:i:406
    ## Here's the original base quality string.

    $ samtools calmd -Ar my.bam hg19_sorted.bam.fa
    @HD VN:1.0 SO:coordinate
    ...
    SEQUENCER02_165:1:1207:8548:44865 99 chr3.fa 178936033 254 50M = 178936190 207 AAATGACAAAGAACAGCTCAAAGCAATTTCTACACGAGATCCTCTCTCTG ;;>FFFFFHHHHHJJJJJJIJJJIJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJIJIJJJJJJE BC:Z:CGATGT XD:Z:50 SM:i:3 AS:i:406 ZQ:Z:HHE@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@E NM:i:0 MD:Z:50
    ## Here's the BAQ-adjusted base quality string, using calmd.

    $ samtools mpileup -A -Q 0 -d 10000000 -f hg19_sorted.bam.fa my.bam
    [mpileup] 1 samples in 1 input files
    (mpileup) Max depth is above 1M. Potential memory hog!
    chr3.fa 178936033 A 1 ^~. C
    chr3.fa 178936034 A 1 . C
    chr3.fa 178936035 A 1 . C
    chr3.fa 178936036 T 1 . F
    chr3.fa 178936037 G 1 . F
    chr3.fa 178936038 A 1 . F
    chr3.fa 178936039 C 1 . F
    chr3.fa 178936040 A 1 . F
    chr3.fa 178936041 A 1 . H
    chr3.fa 178936042 A 1 . H
    chr3.fa 178936043 G 1 . H
    chr3.fa 178936044 A 1 . H
    chr3.fa 178936045 A 1 . H
    chr3.fa 178936046 C 1 . J
    chr3.fa 178936047 A 1 . J
    chr3.fa 178936048 G 1 . J
    chr3.fa 178936049 C 1 . J
    chr3.fa 178936050 T 1 . J
    chr3.fa 178936051 C 1 . J
    chr3.fa 178936052 A 1 . I
    chr3.fa 178936053 A 1 . J
    chr3.fa 178936054 A 1 . J
    chr3.fa 178936055 G 1 . J
    chr3.fa 178936056 C 1 . I
    chr3.fa 178936057 A 1 . J
    chr3.fa 178936058 A 1 . J
    chr3.fa 178936059 T 1 . J
    chr3.fa 178936060 T 1 . J
    chr3.fa 178936061 T 1 . J
    chr3.fa 178936062 C 1 . J
    chr3.fa 178936063 T 1 . J
    chr3.fa 178936064 A 1 . J
    chr3.fa 178936065 C 1 . J
    chr3.fa 178936066 A 1 . J
    chr3.fa 178936067 C 1 . J
    chr3.fa 178936068 G 1 . J
    chr3.fa 178936069 A 1 . J
    chr3.fa 178936070 G 1 . J
    chr3.fa 178936071 A 1 . J
    chr3.fa 178936072 T 1 . J
    chr3.fa 178936073 C 1 . I
    chr3.fa 178936074 C 1 . J
    chr3.fa 178936075 T 1 . I
    chr3.fa 178936076 C 1 . J
    chr3.fa 178936077 T 1 . J
    chr3.fa 178936078 C 1 . J
    chr3.fa 178936079 T 1 . J
    chr3.fa 178936080 C 1 . J
    chr3.fa 178936081 T 1 . J
    chr3.fa 178936082 G 1 .$ J
    ## Here's the BAQ-adjusted base quality string, using mpileup.
    ## Note that calmd and mpileup give different BAQ-adjusted base qualities at the start and end of the read.



    None of the following modifications to the options seems to make any difference in this case:
    • omitting the -A option with calmd
    • using the default -Q value with mpileup
    • using the -E option with mpileup


    Why do the BAQ-adjusted base qualities differ between mpileup and calmd? Any thoughts or explanation would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance!

  • #2
    I haven't conducted as thorough an investigation of the matter as adeirossi, but six years later I can confirm that in the pipeline we're developing, using calmd -bAr beforehand is not yielding the same results as performing the BAQ calculation in mpileup.

    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
    8 views
    0 likes
    Last Post seqadmin  
    Started by seqadmin, Yesterday, 06:07 PM
    0 responses
    8 views
    0 likes
    Last Post seqadmin  
    Started by seqadmin, 03-22-2024, 10:03 AM
    0 responses
    49 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