Unconfigured Ad

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • tirohia
    Member
    • Nov 2011
    • 47

    Correcting a reference genome for Tophat

    Hi.

    I am currently mapping plant transcriptome reads from one cultivar to the genome of another culitvar of the same species. It has been suggested that to improve the mapping, it might be worthwhile to correct the reference genome for use with cultivar that my reads are from.

    I can see how this could improve the number of reads that map to the reference. It feels like it might be a bit circular though, as if I'm taking the transcriptome from one of my samples and using that as reference for itself (and the rest of my samples). Can anyone think of why this might be bad idea?

    At the moment I am using tophat and taking the resulting insertions.bed and deletions.bed, reading the files manually and then manually ineserting these into the reference genome. Is there a better way to do this?

    Cheers
    Ben.
  • Brian Bushnell
    Super Moderator
    • Jan 2014
    • 2709

    #2
    Originally posted by tirohia View Post
    Hi.

    I am currently mapping plant transcriptome reads from one cultivar to the genome of another culitvar of the same species. It has been suggested that to improve the mapping, it might be worthwhile to correct the reference genome for use with cultivar that my reads are from.

    I can see how this could improve the number of reads that map to the reference. It feels like it might be a bit circular though, as if I'm taking the transcriptome from one of my samples and using that as reference for itself (and the rest of my samples). Can anyone think of why this might be bad idea?

    At the moment I am using tophat and taking the resulting insertions.bed and deletions.bed, reading the files manually and then manually ineserting these into the reference genome. Is there a better way to do this?

    Cheers
    Ben.
    If you want to improve mapping without bias, you need a new mapper, or a new assembly. So, either get a better mapper, or assemble reads from your sample denovo (which is very difficult), or map whole genome reads to the reference, then correct the reference by replacing the reference with any homozygous variation calls. This last method is the best as long as you have no reference bias. Which you will. But still, it could be the best if the ref-bias is minimal.

    Mapping to transcriptomes is already highly subjective, biased, and error-prone - no matter how robust the rest of your study may be. But mapping to a modified transcriptome based on RNA-seq data from a different strain should never get through peer-review.

    Therefore... you need whole-genome data. Exome, transcriptome, or whatever limited subset are not alone mathematically adequate in describing a genome - and thus, they cannot be used definitively when analyzing a related strain. If you just modify a transcriptome arbitrarily based on your reads, then remap, you will get indefensible data.

    To reduce bias to minimum, when cross-strain mapping, you should use the most sensitive and accurate mapper available. Using iterative stages of "map-changeReference-map-changeReference" will exponentially amplify bias.

    -Brian

    Comment

    Latest Articles

    Collapse

    • SEQadmin2
      Advanced Sequencing Platforms Tackle Neuroscience’s Toughest Genomics Problems
      by SEQadmin2



      Genomics studies in neuroscience face a special challenge due to the brain’s complexity and scarcity of samples. Mapping changes in cell type and state using conventional next-generation sequencing methods remains challenging. Advances in technologies like single-cell sequencing, spatial transcriptomics, and long-read sequencing have opened the door to deeper studies of the brain and diseases like Alzheimer’s, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), and schizophrenia.
      ...
      07-09-2026, 11:10 AM
    • SEQadmin2
      Cancer Drug Resistance: The Lingering Barrier to Rising Survival
      by SEQadmin2



      Cancer survival rates have significantly increased in the last few decades in the United States, reaching a combined 70% 5-year survival rate by 2021. Behind this number, there are years of research to find new therapies, drug targets, and early detection methods. But there is one core challenge that keeps slowing down these advances, and it’s about drug resistance.

      There is no single reason why many patients don’t respond to treatment as expected. Cancer is...
      07-08-2026, 05:17 AM
    • 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

    ad_right_rmr

    Collapse

    News

    Collapse

    Topics Statistics Last Post
    Started by SEQadmin2, 07-13-2026, 10:26 AM
    0 responses
    26 views
    0 reactions
    Last Post SEQadmin2  
    Started by SEQadmin2, 07-09-2026, 10:04 AM
    0 responses
    37 views
    0 reactions
    Last Post SEQadmin2  
    Started by SEQadmin2, 07-08-2026, 10:08 AM
    0 responses
    23 views
    0 reactions
    Last Post SEQadmin2  
    Started by SEQadmin2, 07-07-2026, 11:05 AM
    0 responses
    34 views
    0 reactions
    Last Post SEQadmin2  
    Working...