Is removal of organelle data necessary before determining the level of duplication in transcriptomics data and their removal? Why it is necessary?
Seqanswers Leaderboard Ad
Collapse
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
-
Originally posted by Brian Bushnell View PostRemoval of organelle reads is not necessary. But it can make your job more efficient if a huge amount of your reads came from organelles that you don't care about.
Comment
-
If you are interested in differential expression of organelle genes, then clearly you should not remove them! If you wish to know the overall expression of both nuclear and organelle genes, and consider RNA content a proxy for their activity, it does not make sense to me to process them independently. But, maybe a biologist will chime in and correct me on that; perhaps the expression of nuclear and organelle transcripts are very different and should be processed independently.
My prior answer that "removal of organelle reads is not necessary" was based on the fact that chloroplast and mitochondrial reads don't pose much of a problem to my institution - it's convenient, but not necessary (and usually very difficult), to separate organelle and nuclear reads prior to assembly. For RNA-seq, it seems to me a waste of time and counterproductive if you want to analyze differential expression of both nuclear and organelle genes, but again, I'll defer to biologists.
Comment
-
best practices for organellar ID and purging?
Hi Brian-- Any tips on pipelines or documents that describe the best way to evaluate (and possibly purge) the organellar content of a batch of reads? (Googling didn't get me as far as I was expecting it would.) It seems to be a problem of variable magnitude and, as you say, sometimes has a big impact on the results of using the non-organellar content.
Thanks! -- Jonathan
Originally posted by Brian Bushnell View PostIf you are interested in differential expression of organelle genes, then clearly you should not remove them! If you wish to know the overall expression of both nuclear and organelle genes, and consider RNA content a proxy for their activity, it does not make sense to me to process them independently. But, maybe a biologist will chime in and correct me on that; perhaps the expression of nuclear and organelle transcripts are very different and should be processed independently.
My prior answer that "removal of organelle reads is not necessary" was based on the fact that chloroplast and mitochondrial reads don't pose much of a problem to my institution - it's convenient, but not necessary (and usually very difficult), to separate organelle and nuclear reads prior to assembly. For RNA-seq, it seems to me a waste of time and counterproductive if you want to analyze differential expression of both nuclear and organelle genes, but again, I'll defer to biologists.
Comment
-
If you have organelle references and a main genome reference, you can try using BBMap's BBSplit or Seal to fractionate the reads between them or generate stats about how many reads go with each one. BBSplit is probably more accurate and alignment-based, while Seal is faster and kmer-based. Example:
Code:bbsplit.sh ref=genome.fa,mito.fa,chloro.fa in=reads.fq basename=out_%.fq refstats=refstats.txt
If you don't have references, you can still attempt fractionation based on kmer-coverage, at least for mitochondrial reads. I've done this successfully to assemble fungal mitochondria from raw fungal reads like this:
Code:#First link reference as ref.fa and reads as reads.fq.gz kmercountexact.sh in=reads.fq.gz khist=khist_raw.txt peaks=peaks_raw.txt primary=`grep "haploid_fold_coverage" peaks_raw.txt | sed "s/^.*\t//g"` cutoff=$(( $primary * 3 )) bbnorm.sh in=reads.fq.gz out=highpass.fq.gz pigz passes=1 bits=16 min=$cutoff target=9999999 reformat.sh in=highpass.fq.gz out=highpass_gc.fq.gz maxgc=0.45 kmercountexact.sh in=highpass_gc.fq.gz khist=khist_100.txt k=100 peaks=peaks_100.txt smooth ow smoothradius=1 maxradius=1000 progressivemult=1.06 maxpeaks=16 prefilter=2 mitopeak=`grep "main_peak" peaks_100.txt | sed "s/^.*\t//g"` upper=$((mitopeak * 6 / 3)) lower=$((mitopeak * 3 / 7)) mcs=$((mitopeak * 3 / 4)) mincov=$((mitopeak * 2 / 3)) tadwrapper.sh in=highpass_gc.fq.gz out=contigs_intermediate_%.fa k=78,100,120 outfinal=contigs_intermediate.fa prefilter=2 mincr=$lower maxcr=$upper mcs=$mcs mincov=$mincov bbduk.sh in=highpass.fq.gz ref=contigs_intermediate.fa outm=bbd005.fq.gz k=31 mm=f mkf=0.05 tadpole.sh in=bbd005.fq.gz out=contigs_bbd.fa prefilter=2 mincr=$((mitopeak * 3 / 8)) maxcr=$((upper * 2)) mcs=$mcs mincov=$mincov k=100 bm1=6 ln -s contigs_bbd.fa contigs.fa
Last edited by Brian Bushnell; 08-09-2017, 03:52 PM.
Comment
Latest Articles
Collapse
-
by seqadmin
Innovations in next-generation sequencing technologies and techniques are driving more precise and comprehensive exploration of complex biological systems. Current advancements include improved accessibility for long-read sequencing and significant progress in single-cell and 3D genomics. This article explores some of the most impactful developments in the field over the past year.
Long-Read Sequencing
Long-read sequencing has seen remarkable advancements,...-
Channel: Articles
12-02-2024, 01:49 PM -
ad_right_rmr
Collapse
News
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by seqadmin, 12-02-2024, 09:29 AM
|
0 responses
158 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seqadmin
12-02-2024, 09:29 AM
|
||
Started by seqadmin, 12-02-2024, 09:06 AM
|
0 responses
56 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seqadmin
12-02-2024, 09:06 AM
|
||
Started by seqadmin, 12-02-2024, 08:03 AM
|
0 responses
48 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seqadmin
12-02-2024, 08:03 AM
|
||
Started by seqadmin, 11-22-2024, 07:36 AM
|
0 responses
76 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seqadmin
11-22-2024, 07:36 AM
|
Comment