Unconfigured Ad

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • adeirossi
    Member
    • Jan 2012
    • 11

    #1

    samtools: BAQ differs between mpileup and calmd

    Hello,

    Though samtools is a wonderful tool, the other day I came across a behavior that left me confused. I have found some reads in an Illumina dataset where the BAQ calculation appears to give a different result depending on whether it is performed by samtools mpileup or samtools calmd. This contradicts my assumption that BAQ-adjusted base qualities would be the same regardless of whether mpileup or calmd is used. (I am running samtools version 0.1.17 on Linux.)

    To demonstrate, I put one such read into its own BAM file and ran mpileup and calmd:

    $ samtools view my.bam
    SEQUENCER02_165:1:1207:8548:44865 99 chr3.fa 178936033 254 50M = 178936190 207 AAATGACAAAGAACAGCTCAAAGCAATTTCTACACGAGATCCTCTCTCTG CCCFFFFFHHHHHJJJJJJIJJJIJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJIJIJJJJJJJ BC:Z:CGATGT XD:Z:50 SM:i:3 AS:i:406
    ## Here's the original base quality string.

    $ samtools calmd -Ar my.bam hg19_sorted.bam.fa
    @HD VN:1.0 SO:coordinate
    ...
    SEQUENCER02_165:1:1207:8548:44865 99 chr3.fa 178936033 254 50M = 178936190 207 AAATGACAAAGAACAGCTCAAAGCAATTTCTACACGAGATCCTCTCTCTG ;;>FFFFFHHHHHJJJJJJIJJJIJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJIJIJJJJJJE BC:Z:CGATGT XD:Z:50 SM:i:3 AS:i:406 ZQ:Z:HHE@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@E NM:i:0 MD:Z:50
    ## Here's the BAQ-adjusted base quality string, using calmd.

    $ samtools mpileup -A -Q 0 -d 10000000 -f hg19_sorted.bam.fa my.bam
    [mpileup] 1 samples in 1 input files
    (mpileup) Max depth is above 1M. Potential memory hog!
    chr3.fa 178936033 A 1 ^~. C
    chr3.fa 178936034 A 1 . C
    chr3.fa 178936035 A 1 . C
    chr3.fa 178936036 T 1 . F
    chr3.fa 178936037 G 1 . F
    chr3.fa 178936038 A 1 . F
    chr3.fa 178936039 C 1 . F
    chr3.fa 178936040 A 1 . F
    chr3.fa 178936041 A 1 . H
    chr3.fa 178936042 A 1 . H
    chr3.fa 178936043 G 1 . H
    chr3.fa 178936044 A 1 . H
    chr3.fa 178936045 A 1 . H
    chr3.fa 178936046 C 1 . J
    chr3.fa 178936047 A 1 . J
    chr3.fa 178936048 G 1 . J
    chr3.fa 178936049 C 1 . J
    chr3.fa 178936050 T 1 . J
    chr3.fa 178936051 C 1 . J
    chr3.fa 178936052 A 1 . I
    chr3.fa 178936053 A 1 . J
    chr3.fa 178936054 A 1 . J
    chr3.fa 178936055 G 1 . J
    chr3.fa 178936056 C 1 . I
    chr3.fa 178936057 A 1 . J
    chr3.fa 178936058 A 1 . J
    chr3.fa 178936059 T 1 . J
    chr3.fa 178936060 T 1 . J
    chr3.fa 178936061 T 1 . J
    chr3.fa 178936062 C 1 . J
    chr3.fa 178936063 T 1 . J
    chr3.fa 178936064 A 1 . J
    chr3.fa 178936065 C 1 . J
    chr3.fa 178936066 A 1 . J
    chr3.fa 178936067 C 1 . J
    chr3.fa 178936068 G 1 . J
    chr3.fa 178936069 A 1 . J
    chr3.fa 178936070 G 1 . J
    chr3.fa 178936071 A 1 . J
    chr3.fa 178936072 T 1 . J
    chr3.fa 178936073 C 1 . I
    chr3.fa 178936074 C 1 . J
    chr3.fa 178936075 T 1 . I
    chr3.fa 178936076 C 1 . J
    chr3.fa 178936077 T 1 . J
    chr3.fa 178936078 C 1 . J
    chr3.fa 178936079 T 1 . J
    chr3.fa 178936080 C 1 . J
    chr3.fa 178936081 T 1 . J
    chr3.fa 178936082 G 1 .$ J
    ## Here's the BAQ-adjusted base quality string, using mpileup.
    ## Note that calmd and mpileup give different BAQ-adjusted base qualities at the start and end of the read.



    None of the following modifications to the options seems to make any difference in this case:
    • omitting the -A option with calmd
    • using the default -Q value with mpileup
    • using the -E option with mpileup


    Why do the BAQ-adjusted base qualities differ between mpileup and calmd? Any thoughts or explanation would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance!
  • kjohnsen
    Junior Member
    • Apr 2018
    • 1

    #2
    I haven't conducted as thorough an investigation of the matter as adeirossi, but six years later I can confirm that in the pipeline we're developing, using calmd -bAr beforehand is not yielding the same results as performing the BAQ calculation in mpileup.

    Comment

    Latest Articles

    Collapse

    • kinpict.com
      Reply to 16S/ITS Profiling vs. Shotgun Metagenomics: What Changes in Your Workflow?
      by kinpict.com
      The part about this topic feels surprisingly grounded, and the details on the page is the bit that made me slow down. I’d keep <a href="https://kinpict.com/">ai family photo generator</a> bookmarked for later.
      Today, 06:37 PM
    • 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,...
      10-30-2026, 06:46 AM

    ad_right_rmr

    Collapse

    News

    Collapse

    Topics Statistics Last Post
    Started by SEQadmin2, 11-12-2026, 07:59 AM
    0 responses
    27 views
    0 reactions
    Last Post SEQadmin2  
    Started by SEQadmin2, 11-05-2026, 09:25 AM
    0 responses
    35 views
    0 reactions
    Last Post SEQadmin2  
    Started by SEQadmin2, 11-03-2026, 11:54 AM
    2 responses
    56 views
    0 reactions
    Last Post kinpict.com  
    Started by SEQadmin2, 10-28-2026, 09:57 AM
    0 responses
    175 views
    0 reactions
    Last Post SEQadmin2  
    Working...