Unconfigured Ad

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • kevin9y9
    Junior Member
    • Jan 2013
    • 2

    Optimizing tophat running time

    Hi friends,

    I'm trying to align 50bp paired-end Illumina reads to the mm10 genome/transcriptome with tophat 2.0.8. I've done a few runs on our local desktop Mac Pros to get an idea of how the software is working, and now I'm starting to migrate this onto our local high performance computing cluster in the hopes of running the alignments faster (or at least running them in parallel rather than sequentially) as these are large data sets. I'm wondering if anyone has advice on how much computational resources I should request per data set to get them to run quickly, without hogging the system, given that not every step in the tophat pipeline is multi-threaded?

    From my pilot alignments and from reading these forums, I understand that the segment_juncs step is single-threaded and time-consuming -- will this step run more quickly if more memory is available to it? (i.e., Is it "fair" to request more cores from the system just to have their memory? Does the speed of this step scale at all? In my pilots, the run time has been quite variable, and I haven't been able to correlate it with anything obvious.)

    Empirically I've also seen that setting the -p value to less than the actual number of cores available is also necessary to avoid problems when the tophat script shell tries to invoke samtools or other processes while running the alignment and output steps, but it is not totally clear to me what a good value for this should be to avoid problems. Is there any good rule of thumb here, like p="number of cores available" - "some particular constant that I don't know"?

    Thanks in advance for any advice you can provide. The computational side of this is pretty intimidating to a bench biologist, and I've tried to RTFM as best I can understand it, I swear I have!
  • NicoBxl
    not just another member
    • Aug 2010
    • 264

    #2
    If you want speed, try STAR. It's much more faster than tophat (and the results seems even better). The only thing is that STAR use much RAM than tophat .



    If you want to use tophat, use not to much process. I think a maximum of 10 is ok.

    Comment

    Latest Articles

    Collapse

    • GATTACAT
      Reply to Nine Things a Sample Prep Scientist Thinks About Before Sequencing
      by GATTACAT
      Love this - good data definitely starts from good input, and poor input can only give relatively poor data. I particularly like the mention of Nanodrop/absorbance based methods for quantification. It's such a toss up if you'll get an accurate reading or what amounts to a randomly generated number, and a lot of library/sequencing related issues can be traced back to poor quant.
      07-01-2026, 11:43 AM
    • 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...
      06-18-2026, 07:11 AM

    ad_right_rmr

    Collapse

    News

    Collapse

    Topics Statistics Last Post
    Started by SEQadmin2, 07-02-2026, 11:08 AM
    0 responses
    25 views
    0 reactions
    Last Post SEQadmin2  
    Started by SEQadmin2, 06-30-2026, 05:37 AM
    0 responses
    23 views
    0 reactions
    Last Post SEQadmin2  
    Started by SEQadmin2, 06-26-2026, 11:10 AM
    0 responses
    23 views
    0 reactions
    Last Post SEQadmin2  
    Started by SEQadmin2, 06-17-2026, 06:09 AM
    0 responses
    55 views
    0 reactions
    Last Post SEQadmin2  
    Working...