Unconfigured Ad

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Bueller_007
    Member
    • May 2010
    • 16

    #1

    Removing duplicate reads from multigig .csfasta

    Hi all.

    I'm trying to do a de novo transcriptome assembly using ABI SOLiD data. I'm trying to use Velvet/Oases at the moment, and I've found that PCR duplicates seem to be a serious problem during the postprocessing step when the double-encoded contigs are converted back into colour-space reads prior to the final assembly. This step takes at least 72 hours, which is an order of magnitude greater than the time required by the Velvet/Oases assemblers themselves. The postprocessing output file just keeps swelling in size because there are so many PCR duplicates.

    So the question is: is there an efficient program out there I can use to remove duplicate reads from my .csfasta (and preferably the corresponding _QV.qual) file prior to assembly? I know there's an option to do this filtering on the SOLiD machine itself, but the person who did the sequencing didn't enable it.

    Thanks.
  • drio
    Senior Member
    • Oct 2008
    • 323

    #2
    I don't think there is anything like that out there. You need alignments to detect duplicates.
    About the SOLiD instrument filtering, perhaps you are talking about dropping reads with low quality?
    -drd

    Comment

    • Bueller_007
      Member
      • May 2010
      • 16

      #3
      Originally posted by drio View Post
      I don't think there is anything like that out there. You need alignments to detect duplicates.
      About the SOLiD instrument filtering, perhaps you are talking about dropping reads with low quality?
      I don't think I need alignments, as I'm talking about identical ~reads~. Removing these duplicates can be performed by Corona prior to data output using the --noduplicates option. However, I can't find an equivalent for data that has already been outputted by the SOLiD system.

      There are multiple programs available for filtering out low-quality reads. That's not what I need.

      Comment

      • nilshomer
        Nils Homer
        • Nov 2008
        • 1283

        #4
        Originally posted by Bueller_007 View Post
        I don't think I need alignments, as I'm talking about identical ~reads~. Removing these duplicates can be performed by Corona prior to data output using the --noduplicates option. However, I can't find an equivalent for data that has already been outputted by the SOLiD system.

        There are multiple programs available for filtering out low-quality reads. That's not what I need.
        A few lines of your favorite programming language should be able to do it. Lexicographically sort by sequence and remove duplicates.

        Comment

        • drio
          Senior Member
          • Oct 2008
          • 323

          #5
          Originally posted by nilshomer View Post
          A few lines of your favorite programming language should be able to do it. Lexicographically sort by sequence and remove duplicates.
          Something like this: http://github.com/drio/dups.fasta.qual
          -drd

          Comment

          • Bueller_007
            Member
            • May 2010
            • 16

            #6
            Thanks. I didn't get email notifications that people had replied to my post, so I didn't find these until just now.

            For what it's worth, I believe that FASTX_collapser ( http://hannonlab.cshl.edu/fastx_toolkit/ ) can also do this, with the caveat that your .csfasta and _QV.qual have to be merged into a .fastq first (with the .csfasta double-encoded) if you also want to remove the duplicates from your _QV.qual file.

            Comment

            • Chipper
              Senior Member
              • Mar 2008
              • 323

              #7
              Wouldn't removing all identical reads result in enrichment of reads with errorrs? Perhaps filterting on the first part and allowing some duplicates would work better.

              Comment

              • Bueller_007
                Member
                • May 2010
                • 16

                #8
                Originally posted by Chipper View Post
                Wouldn't removing all identical reads result in enrichment of reads with errorrs? Perhaps filterting on the first part and allowing some duplicates would work better.
                Probably true. That's why it's better to remove duplicates after alignment/assembly. Unfortunately, I'm feeding the end-product to CLC Genomics Workbench and they don't have duplicate removal yet. The dupes are messing up my SNP discovery pretty badly.

                I'd turn on a maximum coverage limit, but since it's a transcriptome, the coverage varies with expression level, so I'm hesitant to omit highly covered regions. I've tried exporting to BAM, removing dupes with Picard and importing back in, but the reimport didn't work for whatever reason.

                Comment

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