Unconfigured Ad

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • vaibhav_jain
    Junior Member
    • Jan 2011
    • 6

    cuffdiff not performing splicing tests and promoter tests

    Hi all,

    I am using cufflinks package to look for differentially spliced exons. The pipeline I followed is tophat -> cufflinks -> cuffmerge/cuffcompare(tried with both) -> cuffdiff.
    Result on command line is like this :-

    Performed 23758 isoform-level transcription difference tests
    Performed 20313 tss-level transcription difference tests
    Performed 18306 gene-level transcription difference tests
    Performed 17903 CDS-level transcription difference tests
    Performed 0 splicing tests
    Performed 0 promoter preference tests
    Performing 0 relative CDS output tests
    Writing isoform-level FPKM tracking
    Writing TSS group-level FPKM tracking
    Writing gene-level FPKM tracking
    Writing CDS-level FPKM tracking
    Writing isoform-level count tracking
    Writing TSS group-level count tracking
    Writing gene-level count tracking
    Writing CDS-level count tracking
    Writing isoform-level read group tracking
    Writing TSS group-level read group tracking
    Writing gene-level read group tracking
    Writing CDS-level read group tracking
    Writing read group info
    Writing run info

    Command I used to run cuffdiff is :-
    ./cuffdiff --no-update-check -o day0 -p 2 -N -b /home/Vaibhav/Alt_transcriptome_data/ws230/ws230.fa -u merged_asm/merged.gtf /home/Vaibhav/Alt_transcriptome_data/new/again_X_day0/accepted_hits.bam /home/Vaibhav/Alt_transcriptome_data/new/again_Y_day0/accepted_hits.bam

    I have no replicates of the sample. Now I am getting some differential results for gene, cds and isoform but getting nothing for splicing and promoter something I am interested in. I also tried lowering c option till 2, but got the same result.Can someone please suggest me what should I do so that cuffdiff performs splicing tests.
    Really in need of the differential spliced exons for my data.

    Thanks a lot
  • krespim
    Member
    • Jul 2012
    • 49

    #2
    hi vaibhav_jain,

    did you solve the problem? I having similar issues and can't for the life of me figure out what is going on.

    Comment

    • leifive
      Member
      • Mar 2013
      • 10

      #3
      Hi, vaibhav_jain and krespim:
      Have you solved the problem? This has puzzled me almost one week. Why cuffdiff performed 0 splicing test?

      Comment

      • krespim
        Member
        • Jul 2012
        • 49

        #4
        Originally posted by leifive View Post
        Hi, vaibhav_jain and krespim:
        Have you solved the problem? This has puzzled me almost one week. Why cuffdiff performed 0 splicing test?

        Not really a solution, but when I load the results in cuffdiff I do get DE isoforms. Do try that. Maybe it is just a bug in the reporting.

        Comment

        • leifive
          Member
          • Mar 2013
          • 10

          #5
          Originally posted by krespim View Post
          Not really a solution, but when I load the results in cuffdiff I do get DE isoforms. Do try that. Maybe it is just a bug in the reporting.
          Thanks for your reply, krespim. But I don't think this is just a bug in the reporting, because there is no "OK" status in my splicing.diff file from Cuffdiff, but NOTEST or LOWDATA instead. And I have tried both combined.gtf and merged.gtf as input of cuffdiff, results are almost the same.

          Comment

          • krespim
            Member
            • Jul 2012
            • 49

            #6
            Originally posted by leifive View Post
            Thanks for your reply, krespim. But I don't think this is just a bug in the reporting, because there is no "OK" status in my splicing.diff file from Cuffdiff, but NOTEST or LOWDATA instead. And I have tried both combined.gtf and merged.gtf as input of cuffdiff, results are almost the same.

            Well, I can't help much further but I can tell you what I end up doing. As I am working with species that have relative well annotated genomes/transcriptomes (Homo sapiens and Mus musculus), I forego the initial cufflinks step and go straight to cufdiff after mapping using the gtf provided in iGenomes as a reference. Here are my settings:

            # cuffdiff v2.0.2

            $cuffdiff -L "GFP,KD" -o $cuff_output -p 8 -u $gtfFile $gfp_a,$gfp_b $srsf1_a,$srsf1_b

            And that seems to work.

            Comment

            • leifive
              Member
              • Mar 2013
              • 10

              #7
              Originally posted by krespim View Post
              Well, I can't help much further but I can tell you what I end up doing. As I am working with species that have relative well annotated genomes/transcriptomes (Homo sapiens and Mus musculus), I forego the initial cufflinks step and go straight to cufdiff after mapping using the gtf provided in iGenomes as a reference. Here are my settings:

              # cuffdiff v2.0.2

              $cuffdiff -L "GFP,KD" -o $cuff_output -p 8 -u $gtfFile $gfp_a,$gfp_b $srsf1_a,$srsf1_b

              And that seems to work.
              Thanks krespim. I have solved the problem by going back to Cufflinks 1.3.0, and I'm not sure whether there is a bug in the lastest version of Cufflinks or something incompatible in my reference file. However, it's done now.

              Comment

              • krespim
                Member
                • Jul 2012
                • 49

                #8
                Update

                Originally posted by leifive View Post
                Thanks krespim. I have solved the problem by going back to Cufflinks 1.3.0, and I'm not sure whether there is a bug in the lastest version of Cufflinks or something incompatible in my reference file. However, it's done now.
                I went back to my notes - because I had to run cuffdiff again - and the problem seems to occur when the annotation gft is not a cufflinks output or from iGenomes (not 100% sure about iGenomes though). The reason is that to perform the splicing tests the gtf needs to have some extra annotated features.

                Solution: run cuffcompare in the orginal gtf.
                cuffcompare -s hg19.fasta -CG -r EnsemblGene-67.gtf EnsemblGene-67.gtf

                This will create a cuff* ready annotation file.

                Comment

                Latest Articles

                Collapse

                • SEQadmin2
                  Nine Things a Sample Prep Scientist Thinks About Before Sequencing
                  by SEQadmin2


                  I’m not a sequencing expert. I’m a purification scientist who uses NGS to evaluate workflows my group develops. With this perspective, we think about the sample first and the NGS workflow second. The sequencer is an exceptionally honest reporter, but it can only report on what you give it, so whether you get clean, interpretable data from an NGS workflow is largely determined before you begin.


                  Here are nine questions we think about, in roughly the order they matter, before...
                  Today, 07:11 AM
                • SEQadmin2
                  From Collection to Sequencing: Why Sample Preparation and Preservation Define Sequencing Data
                  by SEQadmin2


                  Data variability is still an issue in sequencing technologies despite the advances in reproducibility and accuracy of these platforms. But the problem does not originate in the sequencing itself, but in the previous steps, before the sample reaches the sequencer.


                  The first step is collection, followed by preservation and sample preparation for analysis. Most scientists overlook those steps, but not being careful might just be skewing the experiment’s results.
                  ...
                  06-02-2026, 10:05 AM
                • SEQadmin2
                  Single-Cell Sequencing at an Inflection Point: Early Impacts of New Platforms and Emerging Trends
                  by SEQadmin2


                  With the launch of new single-cell sequencing platforms in 2026, the field stands at an exciting inflection point. This article surveys the most impactful advances in the field and discusses how they’re reshaping research in cancer, immunology, and beyond.


                  Introduction

                  Single-cell sequencing technologies have undergone remarkable advances over the past decade, transitioning from low-throughput experimental approaches to highly scalable platforms capable of...
                  05-22-2026, 06:42 AM

                ad_right_rmr

                Collapse

                News

                Collapse

                Topics Statistics Last Post
                Started by SEQadmin2, Yesterday, 06:09 AM
                0 responses
                16 views
                0 reactions
                Last Post SEQadmin2  
                Started by SEQadmin2, 06-09-2026, 11:58 AM
                0 responses
                37 views
                0 reactions
                Last Post SEQadmin2  
                Started by SEQadmin2, 06-05-2026, 10:09 AM
                0 responses
                42 views
                0 reactions
                Last Post SEQadmin2  
                Started by SEQadmin2, 06-04-2026, 08:59 AM
                0 responses
                49 views
                0 reactions
                Last Post SEQadmin2  
                Working...