Unconfigured Ad

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • david.tamborero
    Member
    • Feb 2011
    • 60

    #1

    mpileup base-quality filter does not seem to work

    Hello,

    I am trying to detect somatic mutations on tumor-normal samples (illumina paired-end reads), so what I am doing as the first approach is the following:

    Code:
    - bfast alignement (match + localalign + postprocess) for each sample
    - picard remove_duplicates for each sample
    - samtools mpileup for each sample
    - varscan for each tumor-normal samples pair
    I am interested in not taking into account those reads/bases with 'low' quality for the mpileup step, thus I use the -q/-Q arguments to do so. However, it does not seem to work, and after diving through the data now I am totally confused.

    I check out the bam file by using IGV, which annotates the base/read qualities for each position. The pileup file is generated by the following mpileup command:

    Code:
    /samtools-0.1.18/samtools mpileup -f ref.fa -B -q 1 -Q 30 -SD sample.bam > sample.pileup
    What I observe is that the number of reads that are included in the pileup summary are less than the ones availaible in the bam file. But the point is that they do not seem to respond to the -q1 -Q 30 criteria (for instance, it includes read bases whose quality is much lower than 30, according to the bam file). Note that I disabled the BAQ calculation to do everything more clear. Moreover, the base qualities reported in most of the pileup entries are sistematically lower than 30, e.g:

    Code:
    chr1	115323009	T	18	,$.,,,,,,,,,,c,,,,,	==?=@;>?=77##;#>>;
    And even more confusing for me, when I run Varscan, which is supposed to just summarize the pileup data, the reported number of reads supporting each allele does not fit with the corresponding pileup entry. For instance, for the position of the previous example, Varscan says that only eigth reads supports the 'T' allele.

    I've found many entries about to use/or not the BAQ calculations, but I have no clue about problems with the -q/-Q criteria, or even the Varscan statistics. It should be trivial, so I guess I am missing some silly thing, but any help would be really appreciated.

    thanks a lot!
    david

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
48 views
0 reactions
Last Post SEQadmin2  
Started by SEQadmin2, 10-22-2026, 10:48 AM
0 responses
36 views
0 reactions
Last Post SEQadmin2  
Started by SEQadmin2, 10-15-2026, 10:52 AM
0 responses
46 views
0 reactions
Last Post SEQadmin2  
Started by SEQadmin2, 10-14-2026, 05:39 AM
0 responses
46 views
0 reactions
Last Post SEQadmin2  
Working...