Unconfigured Ad

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • lre1234
    Senior Member
    • Aug 2011
    • 110

    nonunique read mapping and snp calling

    Hi all,
    We are having a little debate here that we would like some other insights into.

    The problem is that we are doing targeted sequencing of a few hundred genes, and plan on looking for snps within those genes. the issue is that a subset of the genes, have some pseudogenes, and/or repetitive regions within them, that would prevent the reads from mapping uniquely to those genes. So we have two choices:

    first would be to allow reads to map to multiple locations in the genome, which would include those repetitive regions within our target genes, and then do SNP calling specifically within the target regions.
    or
    second, be conservative with the alignments, and allow for reads to only map uniquely in the genome, and then do the SNP calling.

    From our discussions, the advantage of the first approach would be that there may be some useful snps within those regions that would be able to see, which may be important for our disease or phenotype. We seem to be on the fence as to which approach to do and which would be better.

    Just wanted to know if anyone may have a thought about this.
  • Brian Bushnell
    Super Moderator
    • Jan 2014
    • 2709

    #2
    I suggest throwing out all reads that do not map uniquely before doing variant-calling. If that excludes too much data, then you should probably use longer reads and a longer insert size for pairs.

    Comment

    • Richard Finney
      Senior Member
      • Feb 2009
      • 701

      #3
      How many samples?

      Comment

      • lre1234
        Senior Member
        • Aug 2011
        • 110

        #4
        I suggest throwing out all reads that do not map uniquely before doing variant-calling. If that excludes too much data, then you should probably use longer reads and a longer insert size for pairs.
        we are using 2x150 PE reads and a 300bp insert size (I think, but need to double check). I guess, my question would be why throwout the reads? What would (in your opinion) be the issue with doing the snp calling in those regions?

        How many samples?
        ~1000 samples

        Comment

        • fanli
          Senior Member
          • Jul 2014
          • 197

          #5
          Let's say that some of the non-uniquely mapped reads actually come from the pseudogenes. Then you'd probably get false positive SNP calls in your target regions

          Agree w/ BB, the standard is to throw out non-unique mappers.

          Comment

          Latest Articles

          Collapse

          • SEQadmin2
            Cancer Drug Resistance: The Lingering Barrier to Rising Survival
            by SEQadmin2



            Cancer survival rates have significantly increased in the last few decades in the United States, reaching a combined 70% 5-year survival rate by 2021. Behind this number, there are years of research to find new therapies, drug targets, and early detection methods. But there is one core challenge that keeps slowing down these advances, and it’s about drug resistance.

            There is no single reason why many patients don’t respond to treatment as expected. Cancer is...
            Yesterday, 05:17 AM
          • GATTACAT
            Reply to Nine Things a Sample Prep Scientist Thinks About Before Sequencing
            by GATTACAT
            Love this - good data definitely starts from good input, and poor input can only give relatively poor data. I particularly like the mention of Nanodrop/absorbance based methods for quantification. It's such a toss up if you'll get an accurate reading or what amounts to a randomly generated number, and a lot of library/sequencing related issues can be traced back to poor quant.
            07-01-2026, 11:43 AM
          • 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

          ad_right_rmr

          Collapse

          News

          Collapse

          Topics Statistics Last Post
          Started by SEQadmin2, Yesterday, 10:08 AM
          0 responses
          6 views
          0 reactions
          Last Post SEQadmin2  
          Started by SEQadmin2, 07-07-2026, 11:05 AM
          0 responses
          8 views
          0 reactions
          Last Post SEQadmin2  
          Started by SEQadmin2, 07-02-2026, 11:08 AM
          0 responses
          31 views
          0 reactions
          Last Post SEQadmin2  
          Started by SEQadmin2, 06-30-2026, 05:37 AM
          0 responses
          29 views
          0 reactions
          Last Post SEQadmin2  
          Working...