Hi all,
My collaborators used Illumina HiSeq to sequence 5 samples (RNA-Seq). I am not sure how many lanes they used but the 5 samples were barcoded and sequenced with multiplexing. The 5 samples include 2 replicates for one condition and 3 replicates for the other. The read length is 50, single end. The samples were prepared and sequenced under the same condition. So I expect that we will obtain similar number of raw reads for the 5 samples.
However, I got 5.5G, 5.7G, 8.6G, 9.1G and 12G respectively for the 5 FASTQ files, reflecting the large variance of raw read numbers. Since the sequencing core would not provide quality control report or the detailed sequencing protocol, so I am not sure if this variance resulted from potential bias in some step of the sequencing experiment.
I wonder if anybody could tell if the observed read number variance is normal or it does reflect some bias.
THank you very much.
My collaborators used Illumina HiSeq to sequence 5 samples (RNA-Seq). I am not sure how many lanes they used but the 5 samples were barcoded and sequenced with multiplexing. The 5 samples include 2 replicates for one condition and 3 replicates for the other. The read length is 50, single end. The samples were prepared and sequenced under the same condition. So I expect that we will obtain similar number of raw reads for the 5 samples.
However, I got 5.5G, 5.7G, 8.6G, 9.1G and 12G respectively for the 5 FASTQ files, reflecting the large variance of raw read numbers. Since the sequencing core would not provide quality control report or the detailed sequencing protocol, so I am not sure if this variance resulted from potential bias in some step of the sequencing experiment.
I wonder if anybody could tell if the observed read number variance is normal or it does reflect some bias.
THank you very much.
Comment