Unconfigured Ad

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • JohanF
    Junior Member
    • Feb 2014
    • 1

    #1

    varscan2 mpileup2snp output differs from mpileup output

    I have a problem understanding the output of VarScan mpileup2snp.

    I use samtools mpileup to generate the pileup (samtools 0.1.18).

    samtools mpileup –q0 –Q0 -r 5:175346000-175347000 -f reference.fasta inputfile.bam > outputfile.pileup

    The output for the position I am interested in is:

    5 175346528 G 94 .$,$Tt.t,,tTtTT+1T,,T.T+1Tt+1t.t,t..ttt,.t.T+1T,Tttttt,t.,.Ttt+1t,.,,,Tt+1t,t...,T.,..tTt..,,.,,T..T,Tt,,.t+1tt,.TT,,
    @>!!@!BB!!!!(@A!A(+B!A!>B!!!A@!A&A!!!!!!A!@AB!!'@@AA)!(@!@?@>!@@>?!!!?@3A@@?!@@!=!!A?A(!?<!!>>


    (mpileup output format - http://samtools.sourceforge.net/pileup.shtml)

    There are many reads with inserts. Since the BAQ calculations in mpileup are applied by default (downweighting the scores close to indels), the base quality scores are low (! = 0) for most variant supporting reads.
    I count 51 reads supporting the reference and 43 reads supporting a variant.
    However, there are only 7 reads supporting a variant with a base quality score > 0.

    I then use the pileup as input to VarScan mpileup2snp (VarScan 2):

    VarScan.jar mpileup2snp outputfile.pileup > mpileup2snp_output.snpcounts

    The output for the position I am interested in is now:

    5 175346528 G T K:50:29:23:38,98%:5,1348E-9 Pass:12:17:7:16:1E0 0 1 0 0 K:50:29:23:38,98%:5,1348E-9

    (mpileup2snp output format - http://varscan.sourceforge.net/using-varscan.html)

    There are two things I don’t understand in this output:
    1) Why is the total depth (50) lower than the number of reads that are counted (52)?
    Total depth of coverage is 50, but the sum of reads supporting reference (29) and reads supporting variant (23) is 52. The sum of the reads counted with reference to strand is also 52 (12+17+7+16=52).
    2) Which reads are counted by mpileup2snp?
    The default threshold for base qualities (the option –min-avg-qual, Minimum base quality at a position to count a read) is 15. If there are only 7 reads supporting the variant with a base quality >0 in the pileup, why does mpileup2snp count 23 variant supporting reads?

    To try to understand this discrepancy I tried the analysis with different base quality thresholds.
    With –min-avg-qual 0 I get the following output:
    5 175346528 G T K:94:51:43:42,57%:2,0929E-16 Pass:24:27:17:26:1E0 0 1 0 0 K:94:51:43:42,57%:2,0929E-16

    I can understand this output since all read counts (total, reference and variant supporting) are the same as the ones I count in the mpileup output.

    However, with higher base quality thresholds (as with the default value in the example above) the read counts from mpileup2snp do not seem to coincide with what I am seeing in the mpileup output.

    How does varscan mpileup2snp translate the quality scores?
    I translate the scores as the ASCII of the character minus 33.
    Example: ! = 0, @ = 31, > = 29.

    I am thankful for any comments that can help me understand the mpileup2snp output.

Latest Articles

Collapse

  • SEQadmin2
    Beyond CRISPR/Cas9: Understand, Choose, and Use the Right Genome Editing Tool
    by SEQadmin2



    CRISPR/Cas9 sparked the gene editing revolution for both research and therapeutics.1 But this system still showed severe issues that limited its applications. The most prominent were the heavy reliance on PAM sequences, delivery limitations, double-stranded breaks that prompt unintended edits and cell death, and editing inefficiency (both in targeting and in knock-in reliability).

    Despite this, “CRISPR helped turn genome editing from a specialized technique into
    ...
    07-31-2026, 11:01 AM
  • SEQadmin2
    Proteomic Platforms: How to Choose the Right Analytical Strategy to Improve Detection and Clinical Applications
    by SEQadmin2


    Proteomics platforms are evolving rapidly, with advances in mass spectrometry and affinity-based approaches expanding what researchers can detect and at what scale. As the field moves toward deeper proteome coverage and clinical applications, scientists face an increasingly complex landscape of tools. This article will explore how researchers are navigating these choices to find the right platform for their work.

    The systematic characterization of the human proteome has
    ...
    07-20-2026, 11:48 AM
  • SEQadmin2
    Advanced Sequencing Platforms Tackle Neuroscience’s Toughest Genomics Problems
    by SEQadmin2



    Genomics studies in neuroscience face a special challenge due to the brain’s complexity and scarcity of samples. Mapping changes in cell type and state using conventional next-generation sequencing methods remains challenging. Advances in technologies like single-cell sequencing, spatial transcriptomics, and long-read sequencing have opened the door to deeper studies of the brain and diseases like Alzheimer’s, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), and schizophrenia.
    ...
    07-09-2026, 11:10 AM

ad_right_rmr

Collapse

News

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by SEQadmin2, 07-31-2026, 02:55 AM
0 responses
18 views
0 reactions
Last Post SEQadmin2  
Started by SEQadmin2, 07-24-2026, 12:17 PM
0 responses
15 views
0 reactions
Last Post SEQadmin2  
Started by SEQadmin2, 07-23-2026, 11:41 AM
0 responses
14 views
0 reactions
Last Post SEQadmin2  
Started by SEQadmin2, 07-20-2026, 11:10 AM
0 responses
26 views
0 reactions
Last Post SEQadmin2  
Working...