Unconfigured Ad

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • vineeth_s
    Junior Member
    • Jun 2011
    • 9

    tophat / bowtie mapping discrepancies

    I am mapping 50 bp SOLiD RNA-Seq reads to the mouse genome.

    When I use bowtie, I get ~60% mapping (I am running bowtie with -e 950 as has been suggested elsewhere for mapping SOLiD runs with bowtie)

    As there was no direct way to give tophat the -e option, I changed line 872 in the tophat python script from
    Code:
    bowtie_header_cmd = [bowtie_path, "--sam"]
    to
    Code:
    bowtie_header_cmd = [bowtie_path, "--sam", "-e 950"]
    When I run tophat with this option, I still get very poor mapping, of about 25%

    Why is there this discrepancy, as one would assume that all of the unspliced mapping that bowtie does should be reproducible by tophat ?

    Vineeth
  • DZhang
    Senior Member
    • Jun 2010
    • 177

    #2
    Hi vineeth,

    Please verify with the author(s) if your way of passing "-e 950" from Tophat to Bowtie. From the Tophat manual, it has very limited options to pass parameters to Bowtie. The manual says Tophat is currently optimized for 75bp or longer SOLID reads. I am not sure what it actually means but it might have contributed to your observation.

    Douglas

    Comment

    • vineeth_s
      Junior Member
      • Jun 2011
      • 9

      #3
      That really should not be an issue as this is the pythonic way (using the subprocess module) of building a command for executing something on the command-line.
      Further when I look at the run logs in the logs folder that TopHat creates, I see the bowtie command formed without issue.

      What I am wondering is since TopHat works serially by first aligning to the genome, then taking the unmapped reads and trying to align it to the splice junction which is where the read length matters (so even if the 75 bp recommendation makes a huge difference) I should only see an increase in mapping as opposed to just using bowtie; what confounds me is why I see the mapping decrease when compared to just using bowtie

      Comment

      • DZhang
        Senior Member
        • Jun 2010
        • 177

        #4
        Hi Vineeth,

        Conceptually you are right but I am not sure how exactly tophat implements the concept. Again, please send your request to the tophat user forum or the author for a direct answer. At the same time, you may compare the mapping rates b/t Bowtie and Tophat without the option "-e 950" to see the trend? Occasionally these logical machines do illogical things.

        Douglas

        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, 07-09-2026, 10:04 AM
        0 responses
        24 views
        0 reactions
        Last Post SEQadmin2  
        Started by SEQadmin2, 07-08-2026, 10:08 AM
        0 responses
        15 views
        0 reactions
        Last Post SEQadmin2  
        Started by SEQadmin2, 07-07-2026, 11:05 AM
        0 responses
        33 views
        0 reactions
        Last Post SEQadmin2  
        Started by SEQadmin2, 07-02-2026, 11:08 AM
        0 responses
        31 views
        0 reactions
        Last Post SEQadmin2  
        Working...