Unconfigured Ad

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • combiochem
    Member
    • Jul 2009
    • 11

    #1

    samtools/mpileup heterozygous SNPs calling

    I'm trying to get heterozygous SNPs from illumina DNA sequencing data.
    I've used samtools/mpileup pipeline and have some questions about the options.

    There are many posts related in the BAQ calculation. As known, the calculation is default and if the options -B is used, more SNPs could be detected (sacrificing the specificity). I've tested with my samples and the difference is almost ~2x or ~3x difference. (-uf vs -Buf, -Euf didn't make a big difference compared -uf)
    Is there anyone with experience with -B -E and -I options?

    Actually, we are not interested in INDELs so I thought that the option -I could be used for ignoring INDELs calling.
    But when I compared the results (for heterozygous SNPs) with -I and without -I, many detected heterozygous SNPs in the results with -I option are actually the INDELs cases in the results without -I option. So is it better to ignore those SNPs, in another word, should I "not" use the -I option?

    I really want to know the appropriate options for calling heterozygous SNPs.
  • swbarnes2
    Senior Member
    • May 2008
    • 910

    #2
    My tiny bit of experience:

    A sanger-verifed herterozygous SNP disappeared when I omitted -B, and reappeared when I put it on. I've had other projects, where I didn't sanger verify, but where multiple related projects all had SNPs in the same gene, which was a highly likely candidate, that were virtually uncallable without the -B option.

    I wouldn't filter out indels, unless you were using an aligner that you know can't handle them.

    Comment

    • combiochem
      Member
      • Jul 2009
      • 11

      #3
      Originally posted by swbarnes2 View Post
      My tiny bit of experience:

      A sanger-verifed herterozygous SNP disappeared when I omitted -B, and reappeared when I put it on. I've had other projects, where I didn't sanger verify, but where multiple related projects all had SNPs in the same gene, which was a highly likely candidate, that were virtually uncallable without the -B option.

      I wouldn't filter out indels, unless you were using an aligner that you know can't handle them.
      Thanks for sharing tips. Actually, the reads were aligned by BWA, so it's better to consider INDELs. Have you used '-E' option (Extended BAQ computation) too?

      Comment

      • swbarnes2
        Senior Member
        • May 2008
        • 910

        #4
        Originally posted by combiochem View Post
        Thanks for sharing tips. Actually, the reads were aligned by BWA, so it's better to consider INDELs. Have you used '-E' option (Extended BAQ computation) too?
        The author of samtools suggested it in a thread where I mentioned my problem with not using -B, but I haven't tried applying to those samples yet.

        For my projects, false positives are not that big a problem. I'm looking for candidate phenotype-causing SNPs most of the time, so sanger-checking a modest number of false positives is not a big deal. But I don't want to miss the real deal because the software was overzealous in trying to help me, so it's safer for me to turn it off entirely.

        But it's good to know that in your tests, -E worked about as well as -B.

        Comment

        • sijungyun
          Junior Member
          • Jul 2011
          • 1

          #5
          For my case, using '-B' increased the number of SNP calls by 2 ~ 5 times from Illumina sequencing data.
          Last edited by sijungyun; 08-03-2011, 03:47 PM.

          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, 10-22-2026, 11:13 AM
          0 responses
          24 views
          0 reactions
          Last Post SEQadmin2  
          Started by SEQadmin2, 10-22-2026, 10:48 AM
          0 responses
          20 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...