Seqanswers Leaderboard Ad

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • TylerBackman
    replied
    Originally posted by sjackman View Post
    I'm seeing the exact same thing. I'm seeing quality values from -1 (? or ASCII 63) to 25 (Y or ASCII 89), with most of the calls being 23 (W or ASCII 87). Tyler, how was your IPAR unit `recalibrated' exactly?
    The scores were only incorrect for the first run with the IPAR unit, and were then correct for all subsequent runs.

    Leave a comment:


  • sjackman
    replied
    I'm seeing the exact same thing. I'm seeing quality values from -1 (? or ASCII 63) to 25 (Y or ASCII 89), with most of the calls being 23 (W or ASCII 87). Tyler, how was your IPAR unit `recalibrated' exactly?

    Leave a comment:


  • TylerBackman
    replied
    Is your image analysis with IPAR, or with the Illumina pipeline? The first time we used our IPAR unit, it needed "calibration" and resulted in reads with very low quality scores. Re-running the image analysis with firecrest provided higher quality reads.

    Leave a comment:


  • d17
    replied
    Torst, thanks for your input:

    Originally posted by Torst View Post
    For Solexa, the estimated probability of a base call error for Q30 is 0.001. ie. correct with 99.9% probability. This is actually not too bad.
    Yes, you're absolutely right ... but I would be happier if we had Q40's that were correct with 99.99% probability!

    Originally posted by Torst View Post
    In our runs, we get similar quality ranges to what you list, although it is rare to get values below 0 - in fact bases called as "N" usually have Q=0 ... which doesn't make much sense to me. Yes, this was GAPipeline 1.0.
    One strange thing we have is that bases called as "N" don't always have the same quality value: in the five lanes I posted about the quality values of "N" bases range from -1 to +3. Of course the -1 doesn't make any sense whatsoever, but at least the others are consistent with the base having a low probability of being correct.

    Originally posted by Torst View Post
    The reason you aren't seeing higher is almost certainly due to the prep and/or instrument.
    Does anyone know how much variation in the prep is stochastic? (i.e. Is there a definite problem that I need to hunt down here, or did we just get unlucky compared with previous runs that had higher quality values?)
    ________
    Last edited by d17; 01-19-2011, 01:56 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Torst
    replied
    Originally posted by d17 View Post
    Anyone have any ideas about what could be happening here? Why don't I see any bases with qualities higher than 30?
    For Solexa, the estimated probability of a base call error for Q30 is 0.001. ie. correct with 99.9% probability. This is actually not too bad.

    In our runs, we get similar quality ranges to what you list, although it is rare to get values below 0 - in fact bases called as "N" usually have Q=0 ... which doesn't make much sense to me. Yes, this was GAPipeline 1.0.

    As I suggest, the quality isn't that bad. The reason you aren't seeing higher is almost certainly due to the prep and/or instrument. eg. if you generate too many clusters on the flowcell (high density) you just won't get high confidence in base calls. It's a touchy tradeoff between density/yield and quality/ability to discern clusters.

    Leave a comment:


  • dlepp
    replied
    Hi Dan,

    I was just to post on the very same problem. Most of my quality scores are "V"s, which converts to Q22 on the Illumina scale, if I have that correct (new to this). I'd be interested to know if you find an explanation.

    Thanks,

    Dion

    Leave a comment:


  • d17
    replied
    Originally posted by TylerBackman View Post
    Perhaps a problem with the instrument itself? Have you previously had high quality runs, and if so has anything changed with your hardware or software?
    Hmm, we have had high quality runs in the past (i.e. quality values from -5 to 40, most bases called as 40). I'll definitely have to check into whether anything has changed with the machine's hardware or software (it's actually not our machine, and these files are a couple of months old now, so that may be hard to track down). I wonder if anyone else has come across quality values that look remotely like these?
    Last edited by d17; 01-19-2011, 01:56 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • TylerBackman
    replied
    Originally posted by d17 View Post
    Anyone have any ideas about what could be happening here? Why don't I see any bases with qualities higher than 30?
    Perhaps a problem with the instrument itself? Have you previously had high quality runs, and if so has anything changed with your hardware or software?

    Leave a comment:


  • d17
    started a topic Illumina/Solexa quality values

    Illumina/Solexa quality values

    Hi everyone,

    I have some Illumina GA fastq files with base quality values that don't span the full range that I expect.

    The quality values for each of five lanes have the following ranges:
    lane 1: 2 to 27
    lane 2: -1 to 26
    lane 3: 1 to 24
    lane 4: 1 to 27
    lane 5: 0 to 30
    with the majority of bases in all lanes having quality values 22 or 23.

    I got the values above by subtracting the offset 64=='@' from the ascii values of the chars presented in the fastq files.

    These ranges don't seem to be consistent with anything I've seen elsewhere. For example, with Solexa quality values I think the range should go from -5 to 40, and for Phred quality values 0 to 40.
    [ Side note: I am not certain whether my files contain Solexa or Phred-based quality values. I see that the quality value output in GERALD fastq files has changed since Illumina pipeline 1.3 (http://seqanswers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1110). Since lane 2 contains some -1's, I assume my quality values are Solexa ]

    Anyone have any ideas about what could be happening here? Why don't I see any bases with qualities higher than 30?

    Thanks!
    Dan
    ________
    Last edited by d17; 01-19-2011, 01:56 AM.

Latest Articles

Collapse

  • seqadmin
    Essential Discoveries and Tools in Epitranscriptomics
    by seqadmin


    The field of epigenetics has traditionally concentrated more on DNA and how changes like methylation and phosphorylation of histones impact gene expression and regulation. However, our increased understanding of RNA modifications and their importance in cellular processes has led to a rise in epitranscriptomics research. “Epitranscriptomics brings together the concepts of epigenetics and gene expression,” explained Adrien Leger, PhD, Principal Research Scientist on Modified Bases...
    Today, 07:01 AM
  • seqadmin
    Current Approaches to Protein Sequencing
    by seqadmin


    Proteins are often described as the workhorses of the cell, and identifying their sequences is key to understanding their role in biological processes and disease. Currently, the most common technique used to determine protein sequences is mass spectrometry. While still a valuable tool, mass spectrometry faces several limitations and requires a highly experienced scientist familiar with the equipment to operate it. Additionally, other proteomic methods, like affinity assays, are constrained...
    04-04-2024, 04:25 PM

ad_right_rmr

Collapse

News

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by seqadmin, 04-11-2024, 12:08 PM
0 responses
37 views
0 likes
Last Post seqadmin  
Started by seqadmin, 04-10-2024, 10:19 PM
0 responses
39 views
0 likes
Last Post seqadmin  
Started by seqadmin, 04-10-2024, 09:21 AM
0 responses
35 views
0 likes
Last Post seqadmin  
Started by seqadmin, 04-04-2024, 09:00 AM
0 responses
54 views
0 likes
Last Post seqadmin  
Working...
X