Unconfigured Ad

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • sijungyun
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • swbarnes2
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • combiochem
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • swbarnes2
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • combiochem
    started a topic samtools/mpileup heterozygous SNPs calling

    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.

Latest Articles

Collapse

  • SEQadmin2
    16S/ITS Profiling vs. Shotgun Metagenomics: What Changes in Your Workflow?
    by SEQadmin2




    NGS has revolutionized clinical microbiology by offering new ways to identify and surveil pathogens without prior knowledge of the target. One popular approach is 16S rRNA and ITS amplicon sequencing, which targets specific microbial markers. But studies are increasingly incorporating shotgun metagenomics, a technique that sequences all DNA from a sample without targeting specific microbial markers. This approach allows more detailed taxonomic classification, detection...
    Today, 06:46 AM
  • 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

ad_right_rmr

Collapse

News

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by SEQadmin2, 10-28-2026, 09:57 AM
0 responses
22 views
0 reactions
Last Post SEQadmin2  
Started by SEQadmin2, 10-28-2026, 09:51 AM
0 responses
14 views
0 reactions
Last Post SEQadmin2  
Started by SEQadmin2, 10-22-2026, 11:13 AM
0 responses
67 views
0 reactions
Last Post SEQadmin2  
Started by SEQadmin2, 10-22-2026, 10:48 AM
0 responses
47 views
0 reactions
Last Post SEQadmin2  
Working...