Unconfigured Ad

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • mparida85
    Member
    • Jan 2014
    • 17

    #1

    Cuffdiff calculations

    Hi
    Everyone
    I have been trying to wrap my head around these problems and I am sorry if someone has posted these exact problems earlier:
    a) Does CUFFDIFF2 handles a .bam file that is a mixture of singletons and paired end fragments?
    I am little uncertain if it does that or not. Doesn't throw an error for sure.
    [Because the manual talks about fragments and how they are used to find assembled isoforms and then abundance estimation of the most likely isoforms, by that I mean most likely reads/fragments must have been generated from an isoform.]

    b) How does cuffdiff calculates (by that I mean the actual calculation not statistical explanation, just data, numbers and formula wise explanation) raw fragment counts, internally scaled and externally scaled counts in the files generated such as genes.count_tracking, isoform.count_tracking , genes.read_group_tracking, and isoform.read_group_tracking?

    c) In my experiment there 2 replicates for control and 2 for experiment. I used cuffdiff to find out the differentially expressed genes.
    I used -c 10 for my CUFFDIFF analysis.
    For a gene that has no isoform and is a single exon gene, I see a NOTEST when there is clearly enough reads in both of my experimental replicates(q1_exp=28,q2_exp=20).
    But when I check the genes.count_tracking=> 8.9382, and the raw fragment counts for q1_exp=15 and q2_exp=2,
    internal_scaled_frags external_scaled_frags
    q1_exp=> 15.8613 15.8613
    q2_exp=> 2.01515 2.01515

    This is a small genome and around 95% of genes in the GTF file do not have any isoforms, so I don't think there is any isoform switching going on over here.
    I just want to know how these numbers come from because the raw counts are different from my read count that involves the following strategy:
    samtools view *.bam scaffold_3:236757-237675 |cut -f1|sort|uniq -c |wc -l

    Hope this makes sense. Please help.
    I will be very grateful for your concern.
    Last edited by mparida85; 01-26-2014, 08:06 AM.

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...