Unconfigured Ad

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • canisirius
    Junior Member
    • Nov 2011
    • 5

    Cuffcompare not showing all query transcripts

    Hi,

    I have 3 reference annotation GTF files and 3 query GTF files which were generated by Tophat-Cufflinks combination.

    I am using cuffcompare to compare the 3 query GTF files against each reference annotation GTF file.

    While doing this I noticed that the resulting combined.gtf and .tracking file are not reporting all the transcripts from the query GTF files.

    When I checked the .stats file I noticed in 'Summary for dataset' section that only a subset of the transcripts are reported.

    Example:
    GTF_A - 265244 transcripts
    GTF_B - 267648 transcripts

    .stats file for GTF_A reports always the same number against all references
    #= Summary for dataset: GTF_A.gtf :
    # Query mRNAs : 216023 in 57092 loci (188694 multi-exon transcripts)

    .stats file for GTF_B also reports always the same number against all references
    #= Summary for dataset: GTF_B.gtf :
    # Query mRNAs : 218034 in 58267 loci (189378 multi-exon transcripts)

    And even though the reference annotation is different the list of missing transcripts from query GTF is exactly the same.
    So they must have been skipped when importing the transcripts from query GTF and it is independent of the reference GTF.

    When comparing GTF_B (Query) vs GTF_A (Reference).
    .stats file reports

    #= Summary for dataset: GTF_B.gtf :
    # Query mRNAs : 218034 in 58267 loci (189378 multi-exon transcripts)
    # (21371 multi-transcript loci, ~3.7 transcripts per locus)
    # Reference mRNAs : 238139 in 45259 loci (223605 multi-exon)

    One thing to notice above is that the statistics for GTF_A (Reference) are different when it is used a reference from earlier when it was used in query.

    I tried to find any trend for the missing transcripts but cannot identify anything.

    Can anyone help me understand the issue at hand.

    Regards,

    Veer
  • N00bSeq
    Member
    • Mar 2014
    • 12

    #2
    I suspect this may be related to cuffcompare excluding "contained" transcripts. Maybe using the -C flag will give less mysterious results.

    From the manual:
    "-C Enables the "contained" transcripts to be also written in the <outprefix>.combined.gtffile, with the attribute "contained_in" showing the first container transfrag found. By default, without this option, cuffcompare does not write in that file isoforms that were found to be fully contained/covered (with the same compatible intron structure) by other transfrags in the same locus."

    Comment

    • canisirius
      Junior Member
      • Nov 2011
      • 5

      #3
      I am sorry I should have posted this earlier. I later found out the reason for this behavior, it was because there were predicted transcripts in the GTF which did not have any strand information and these transcripts without strand information were skipped.

      So what I did is... I assigned them as + strand :-p. I decided to check for the correct strand info later.

      Comment

      Latest Articles

      Collapse

      • SEQadmin2
        Nine Things a Sample Prep Scientist Thinks About Before Sequencing
        by SEQadmin2


        I’m not a sequencing expert. I’m a purification scientist who uses NGS to evaluate workflows my group develops. With this perspective, we think about the sample first and the NGS workflow second. The sequencer is an exceptionally honest reporter, but it can only report on what you give it, so whether you get clean, interpretable data from an NGS workflow is largely determined before you begin.

        Here are nine questions we think about, in roughly the order they matter, before...
        06-18-2026, 07:11 AM
      • SEQadmin2
        From Collection to Sequencing: Why Sample Preparation and Preservation Define Sequencing Data
        by SEQadmin2


        Data variability is still an issue in sequencing technologies despite the advances in reproducibility and accuracy of these platforms. But the problem does not originate in the sequencing itself, but in the previous steps, before the sample reaches the sequencer.


        The first step is collection, followed by preservation and sample preparation for analysis. Most scientists overlook those steps, but not being careful might just be skewing the experiment’s results.
        ...
        06-02-2026, 10:05 AM

      ad_right_rmr

      Collapse

      News

      Collapse

      Topics Statistics Last Post
      Started by SEQadmin2, 06-17-2026, 06:09 AM
      0 responses
      40 views
      0 reactions
      Last Post SEQadmin2  
      Started by SEQadmin2, 06-09-2026, 11:58 AM
      0 responses
      102 views
      0 reactions
      Last Post SEQadmin2  
      Started by SEQadmin2, 06-05-2026, 10:09 AM
      0 responses
      123 views
      0 reactions
      Last Post SEQadmin2  
      Started by SEQadmin2, 06-04-2026, 08:59 AM
      0 responses
      114 views
      0 reactions
      Last Post SEQadmin2  
      Working...