Unconfigured Ad

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • neethav
    Junior Member
    • Feb 2010
    • 4

    #1

    Low mapping for genome and transcriptome

    Hi all,
    I have a set of 75bp SE illumina reads.My problem is that for some samples I am able to map almost 85% of the reads,but for some the mapping percentage is very low,about 20-30% (using MAQ,bwa,bowtie).I tried using bowtie options to trim,increase the mismatches etc.,with no significant increase in mapping.I also ran fastqc on mapped and unmapped reads but it looks very similar.I blasted some of the unmapped sequences,and some seems to be rRNA genes.Is there a way to find out what exactly is different between these libraries? Can I include such samples with high mapping and low mapping as biological replicates (or as test Vs control) for differential gene expression?
    Thanks!
  • mnkyboy
    Member
    • Mar 2009
    • 87

    #2
    Try making a ribosomal index and see what percentage of your samples are ribosomal. There may have been an inconsistency in the library prep.

    Also what are the samples? For example in some of our viral systems we see a very large subset of the sample can be viral RNA.

    Comment

    • neethav
      Junior Member
      • Feb 2010
      • 4

      #3
      My samples are from aphids(insect).I don't understand why the reads from rRNA are not mapping to the transcriptome (it has rRNA genes in it).

      Comment

      • kopi-o
        Senior Member
        • Feb 2008
        • 319

        #4
        Could it be that the rRNA genes are repeated or redundant, so that the reads map to several different loci and are filtered out for that reason? Just speculating here.

        Comment

        • chadn737
          Senior Member
          • Jan 2009
          • 392

          #5
          When you blast these reads is the entire read rRNA or only part of it? My first suspicion when I see samples that map at such a low rate with high quality sequence is adapter sequence in the read.

          Comment

          • kopi-o
            Senior Member
            • Feb 2008
            • 319

            #6
            My first suspicion was adapter sequence contamination too ... but the OP wrote that they had run FastQC and seen similar results for the good and the bad samples (or perhaps I misunderstood). If it was adapter contamination, there should be a noticeable difference in the overrepresented sequences from FastQC.

            Comment

            • pbluescript
              Senior Member
              • Nov 2009
              • 224

              #7
              Could you post some details of your library prep? I had a sample that ended up being contaminated with RNA from other sources. When I ran trinity and blasted the contigs, I ended up seeing a lot of stuff from other species. Mapping the reads to the contigs showed that >40% of the sample likely came from contamination.

              Comment

              Latest Articles

              Collapse

              • SEQadmin2
                Multiomic Liquid Biopsy: What DNA/RNA Panels Reveal That DNA Alone Can’t
                by SEQadmin2



                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
              • SEQadmin2
                New Genomics Technologies Take Aim at Long-Standing Limits
                by SEQadmin2


                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
                ...
                09-28-2026, 10:25 AM

              ad_right_rmr

              Collapse

              News

              Collapse

              Topics Statistics Last Post
              Started by SEQadmin2, Yesterday, 11:13 AM
              0 responses
              21 views
              0 reactions
              Last Post SEQadmin2  
              Started by SEQadmin2, Yesterday, 10:48 AM
              0 responses
              18 views
              0 reactions
              Last Post SEQadmin2  
              Started by SEQadmin2, 10-15-2026, 10:52 AM
              0 responses
              36 views
              0 reactions
              Last Post SEQadmin2  
              Started by SEQadmin2, 10-14-2026, 05:39 AM
              0 responses
              42 views
              0 reactions
              Last Post SEQadmin2  
              Working...