Unconfigured Ad

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • foolishbrat
    Member
    • Nov 2008
    • 45

    #1

    Why mapping rate is low after adapter trimming paired-end data?

    I have the pipeline with the following trimming and mapping parameter:



    Code:
     trim_galore --stringency 5 --dont_gzip --trim1 --length 30 -q 0 -a CTGTCTCTTATACACATCT  -o $TRIMGALORE_DIR $READ1 $READ2
        
     bowtie $Bowtie_Index_File -1 $TRIMGALORE_R1 -2 $TRIMGALORE_R2 --threads 5 -m 1 -v 2 -S -I 0 -X 2000
    Raw paired-end mapping (without adapter trimming) gives this result

    Code:
    **********************************************
        Stats for BAM file(s):
        **********************************************
        
        Total reads:       169555726
        Mapped reads:      97870984    (57.722%)
        Forward strand:    120620234    (71.139%)
        Reverse strand:    48935492    (28.861%)
        Failed QC:         0    (0%)
        Duplicates:        0    (0%)
        Paired-end reads:  169555726    (100%)
        'Proper-pairs':    97870984    (57.722%)
        Both pairs mapped: 97870984    (57.722%)
        Read 1:            84777863
        Read 2:            84777863
        Singletons:        0    (0%)
        Average insert size (absolute value): 125.862
        Median insert size (absolute value): 99
    But after running it with Trim_Galore I get this:

    Code:
      **********************************************
        Stats for BAM file(s):
        **********************************************
        
        Total reads:       168972000
        Mapped reads:      314228    (0.185965%)
        Forward strand:    168814886    (99.907%)
        Reverse strand:    157114    (0.0929823%)
        Failed QC:         0    (0%)
        Duplicates:        0    (0%)
        Paired-end reads:  168972000    (100%)
        'Proper-pairs':    314228    (0.185965%)
        Both pairs mapped: 314228    (0.185965%)
        Read 1:            84486000
        Read 2:            84486000
        Singletons:        0    (0%)
        Average insert size (absolute value): 571.141
        Median insert size (absolute value): 297
    So the mapping rates drop radically from 57% to 0.18%.

    I find it strange because the trim galore only use trim away very little sequence.
    Why was it and what's the right parameter should I use for both Bowtie and Cutadapt/trim_galore?
    Code:
         SUMMARISING RUN PARAMETERS
        ==========================
        Input filename: /home/ubuntu/R1_001.fastq
        Trimming mode: single-end
        Trim Galore version: 0.4.1
        Cutadapt version: 1.12
        Quality Phred score cutoff: 0
        Quality encoding type selected: ASCII+33
        Adapter sequence: 'CTGTCTCTTATACACATCT' ()
        Maximum trimming error rate: 0.1 (default)
        Minimum required adapter overlap (stringency): 5 bp
        Minimum required sequence length before a sequence gets removed: 30 bp
        All sequences will be trimmed by 1 bp on their 3' end to avoid problems with invalid paired-end alignments with Bowtie 1
        Writing final adapter and quality trimmed output to BB_89_S1_R1_001_trimmed.fq
          >>> Now performing quality (cutoff 0) and adapter trimming in a single pass for the adapter sequence: 'CTGTCTCTTATACACATCT' from file /home/ubuntu/R1_001.fastq <<< 
        10000000 sequences processed
        20000000 sequences processed
        30000000 sequences processed
        40000000 sequences processed
        50000000 sequences processed
        60000000 sequences processed
        70000000 sequences processed
        80000000 sequences processed
        This is cutadapt 1.12 with Python 2.7.13
        Command line parameters: -f fastq -e 0.1 -q 0 -O 5 -a CTGTCTCTTATACACATCT /home/ubuntu/R1_001.fastq
        Trimming 1 adapter with at most 10.0% errors in single-end mode ...
        Finished in 804.75 s (9 us/read; 6.32 M reads/minute).
        === Summary ===
        Total reads processed:              84,777,863
        Reads with adapters:                   424,374 (0.5%)
        Reads written (passing filters):    84,777,863 (100.0%)
        Total basepairs processed: 3,052,003,068 bp
        Quality-trimmed:                       0 bp (0.0%)
        Total written (filtered):  3,048,935,811 bp (99.9%)
        === Adapter 1 ===
        Sequence: CTGTCTCTTATACACATCT; Type: regular 3'; Length: 19; Trimmed: 424374 times.
        No. of allowed errors:
        0-9 bp: 0; 10-19 bp: 1
        Bases preceding removed adapters:
          A: 13.7%
          C: 36.7%
          G: 25.3%
          T: 24.2%
          none/other: 0.0%
        Overview of removed sequences
        length  count   expect  max.err error counts
        5   132511  82790.9 0   132511
        6   72231   20697.7 0   72231
        7   50748   5174.4  0   50748
        8   43106   1293.6  0   43106
        9   53661   323.4   0   50630 3031
        10  50660   80.9    1   44674 5986
        11  8616    20.2    1   6320 2296
        12  2894    5.1 1   1601 1293
        13  2928    1.3 1   2706 222
        14  995 0.3 1   906 89
        15  2681    0.1 1   2570 111
        16  620 0.0 1   598 22
        17  1622    0.0 1   1578 44
        18  263 0.0 1   255 8
        19  460 0.0 1   446 14
        20  86  0.0 1   84 2
        21  107 0.0 1   103 4
        22  49  0.0 1   42 7
        23  28  0.0 1   23 5
        24  11  0.0 1   10 1
        25  8   0.0 1   7 1
        26  7   0.0 1   6 1
        27  23  0.0 1   22 1
        28  8   0.0 1   8
        29  1   0.0 1   1
        33  2   0.0 1   1 1
        35  1   0.0 1   0 1
        36  47  0.0 1   45 2
        RUN STATISTICS FOR INPUT FILE: /home/ubuntu/R1_001.fastq
        =============================================
        84777863 sequences processed in total
        Sequences removed because they became shorter than the length cutoff of 30 bp:  291863 (0.3%)
        Writing report to 'trim_galore_dir/R2_001.fastq_trimming_report.txt'
        SUMMARISING RUN PARAMETERS
        ==========================
        Input filename: /home/ubuntu/R2_001.fastq
        Trimming mode: single-end
        Trim Galore version: 0.4.1
        Cutadapt version: 1.12
        Quality Phred score cutoff: 0
        Quality encoding type selected: ASCII+33
        Adapter sequence: 'CTGTCTCTTATACACATCT' ()
        Maximum trimming error rate: 0.1 (default)
        Minimum required adapter overlap (stringency): 5 bp
        Minimum required sequence length before a sequence gets removed: 30 bp
        All sequences will be trimmed by 1 bp on their 3' end to avoid problems with invalid paired-end alignments with Bowtie 1
        Writing final adapter and quality trimmed output to BB_89_S1_R2_001_trimmed.fq
          >>> Now performing quality (cutoff 0) and adapter trimming in a single pass for the adapter sequence: 'CTGTCTCTTATACACATCT' from file /home/ubuntu/R2_001.fastq <<< 
        10000000 sequences processed
        20000000 sequences processed
        30000000 sequences processed
        40000000 sequences processed
        50000000 sequences processed
        60000000 sequences processed
        70000000 sequences processed
        80000000 sequences processed
        This is cutadapt 1.12 with Python 2.7.13
        Command line parameters: -f fastq -e 0.1 -q 0 -O 5 -a CTGTCTCTTATACACATCT /home/ubuntu/R2_001.fastq
        Trimming 1 adapter with at most 10.0% errors in single-end mode ...
        Finished in 814.43 s (10 us/read; 6.25 M reads/minute).
        === Summary ===
        Total reads processed:              84,777,863
        Reads with adapters:                   423,690 (0.5%)
        Reads written (passing filters):    84,777,863 (100.0%)
        Total basepairs processed: 3,052,003,068 bp
        Quality-trimmed:                       0 bp (0.0%)
        Total written (filtered):  3,048,945,359 bp (99.9%)
        === Adapter 1 ===
        Sequence: CTGTCTCTTATACACATCT; Type: regular 3'; Length: 19; Trimmed: 423690 times.
        No. of allowed errors:
        0-9 bp: 0; 10-19 bp: 1
        Bases preceding removed adapters:
          A: 13.7%
          C: 36.1%
          G: 25.4%
          T: 24.8%
          none/other: 0.0%
        Overview of removed sequences
        length  count   expect  max.err error counts
        5   132783  82790.9 0   132783
        6   72585   20697.7 0   72585
        7   50354   5174.4  0   50354
        8   43191   1293.6  0   43191
        9   53096   323.4   0   49979 3117
        10  50491   80.9    1   44467 6024
        11  8598    20.2    1   6158 2440
        12  2915    5.1 1   1566 1349
        13  2880    1.3 1   2625 255
        14  959 0.3 1   865 94
        15  2597    0.1 1   2493 104
        16  601 0.0 1   570 31
        17  1573    0.0 1   1520 53
        18  256 0.0 1   240 16
        19  447 0.0 1   430 17
        20  83  0.0 1   77 6
        21  101 0.0 1   87 14
        22  46  0.0 1   40 6
        23  28  0.0 1   26 2
        24  12  0.0 1   10 2
        25  8   0.0 1   7 1
        26  7   0.0 1   6 1
        27  23  0.0 1   20 3
        28  8   0.0 1   7 1
        29  1   0.0 1   1
        33  2   0.0 1   1 1
        36  45  0.0 1   44 1
  • jdk787
    josh kinman
    • Apr 2014
    • 72

    #2
    It looks like you are trimming paired end files in single end mode.
    Try switching to paired end mode when trimming.

    From Cutadapt User Guide
    Code:
    cutadapt -a ADAPTER_FWD -A ADAPTER_REV -o out.1.fastq -p out.2.fastq reads.1.fastq reads.2.fastq
    Josh Kinman

    Comment

    • foolishbrat
      Member
      • Nov 2008
      • 45

      #3
      Originally posted by jdk787 View Post
      It looks like you are trimming paired end files in single end mode.
      Try switching to paired end mode when trimming.

      From Cutadapt User Guide
      Code:
      cutadapt -a ADAPTER_FWD -A ADAPTER_REV -o out.1.fastq -p out.2.fastq reads.1.fastq reads.2.fastq
      Hi Josh,

      Tried that. But still give low mapping rate.

      FB.

      Comment

      • mastal
        Senior Member
        • Mar 2009
        • 666

        #4
        Are you sure you haven't made some kind of syntax error when running Bowtie after the trimming, or maybe there is something wrong with the format of the files after trimming?

        Because, as you mentioned, cutadapt only removed adapters from a small number of reads, so you would expect at most a small difference in the number of reads aligned, and usually you would expect an improvement.

        Comment

        • Brian Bushnell
          Super Moderator
          • Jan 2014
          • 2709

          #5
          Cross-posted and answered here:

          https://www.biostars.org/p/236127/

          Comment

          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
            ...
            Today, 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, Today, 02:55 AM
          0 responses
          6 views
          0 reactions
          Last Post SEQadmin2  
          Started by SEQadmin2, 07-24-2026, 12:17 PM
          0 responses
          11 views
          0 reactions
          Last Post SEQadmin2  
          Started by SEQadmin2, 07-23-2026, 11:41 AM
          0 responses
          12 views
          0 reactions
          Last Post SEQadmin2  
          Started by SEQadmin2, 07-20-2026, 11:10 AM
          0 responses
          24 views
          0 reactions
          Last Post SEQadmin2  
          Working...