We RNA-seq two samples from the same tissue but different groups using SOLID,and the number of reads are 28 million and 95 million, is this normal,and what is the effect of such large difference?
-
-
Did you do the sequencing yourself? If so could you tell us what the enrichment % was for each library? Were these barcoded and put into the same region, or in different regions?
It is possible, for many reasons, to see large differences in the numbers of sequences from similar samples.
--
Phillip -
Thank you for your reply,a pity,we did not do the sequencing by ourselves,what i got are just the csfasta and qual files of each library.so i have no idea about the enrichment% and the mean of "Were these barcoded and put into the same region, or in different regions".Originally posted by pmiguel View Post
Can i get some indexes from the csfasta and qual files to decide whether i could go on my analysis? thanks.
YeComment
-
Hi Ye,
My advice would be to ask the facility that did the sequencing for you why the numbers are so different for the samples.
Have you mapped the sequences against your reference genome? If so what were the mapping percentages and what organism was it?
You might also want to plot a histogram of quality scores for both data sets. That would give you an indication of whether there are vast differences in their sequence quality.
--
PhillipComment
-
Hi Ye, I have the same problem between my 3 treatments: 10, 6.4 and 5.7 millon on each. And when I mapped against the reference genome the percentages were very different too.
How did you normalized your counts?Comment
-
I agree with Philipp, many factors may effect final sequencing result.
Were the datasets sequenced in same batch?
What the results of FastQC?
You may check the top 20 expressed sequences of each dataset, and they may give you some clues.Comment
-
What's tool you use to map? I use Tophat to analysis,the accepted hits of my two libraries acount for 42% and 57%,and then use cuffdiff (in cufflink )with FPKM to do different expression analysis.Comment
-
It's normal.
The two groups might just have different number of libraries running on a flowcell or library normalization was off before emPCR. The number of reads your sample has depends on the proportion of your library in the whole sequencing pool. Ask whoever handles the agreement between your group and the sequencing service provider to see how many raw reads you are supposed to get based on what you paid for. You might be just lucky to get 95M reads as you are supposed to get only 28M. Or maybe it's' the other way around.
Originally posted by yeyeming View PostComment
-
Hi dzvallo,Originally posted by dzavallo View Post
I'm dealing with a similar problem...at the end what did you do? how did you perform the normalization?
Comment
-
Tumors contain complex mixtures of cell populations that evolve in response to treatment and host-specific factors. Tissue biopsies provide only static snapshots of a tumor’s state. But what if we could follow that evolution over time using a minimally invasive technique?
Liquid biopsies can detect tumor-derived material circulating in the bloodstream, providing a way to study treatment response, detect emerging resistance, and discover new biomarkers. Circulating...10-14-2026, 09:55 AM -
Researchers using sequencing and genomics tools often have to make trade-offs. They can choose between speed or scale, short reads or long-range information, or targeted panels or a view of the whole transcriptome. New technologies that have been released this year are built to address those tough choices.
We asked six companies the same four questions to learn about their latest products. The new technologies bring a lot to the table, including rethinking sequencing...
Comment