Unconfigured Ad

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • illuminaGA
    replied
    Originally posted by aprice67 View Post
    Basically, to sum up, it's okay to use a non-native reference of a closely related strain as long as your reads are pretty long. Reads of 100bp do pretty well, 150 do great, 50 are bad. When you extract counts, be careful of edge cases, (see fig. 5 + 6), with htseq or featurecounts you can specify to avoid these false positives.

    I'm happy to answer any specifics if have questions. Good luck!
    That great information, Thank you so much

    Leave a comment:


  • aprice67
    replied
    Basically, to sum up, it's okay to use a non-native reference of a closely related strain as long as your reads are pretty long. Reads of 100bp do pretty well, 150 do great, 50 are bad. When you extract counts, be careful of edge cases, (see fig. 5 + 6), with htseq or featurecounts you can specify to avoid these false positives.

    I'm happy to answer any specifics if have questions. Good luck!

    Leave a comment:


  • illuminaGA
    replied
    Originally posted by aprice67 View Post
    I recently published a paper on this exact topic. It show how alignment to non-native reference genomes influences outcomes and gives best practices for doing it. I used an e-coli data set in here too.


    Sequence read alignment to a reference genome is a fundamental step in many genomics studies. Accuracy in this fundamental step is crucial for correct interpretation of biological data. In cases where two or more closely related bacterial strains are being studied, a common approach is to simply map reads from all strains to a common reference genome, whether because there is no closed reference for some strains or for ease of comparison. The assumption is that the differences between bacterial strains are insignificant enough that the results of differential expression analysis will not be influenced by choice of reference. Genes that are common among the strains under study are used for differential expression analysis, while the remaining genes, which may fail to express in one sample or the other because they are simply absent, are analyzed separately. In this study, we investigate the practice of using a common reference in transcriptomic analysis. We analyze two multi-strain transcriptomic data sets that were initially presented in the literature as comparisons based on a common reference, but which have available closed genomic sequence for all strains, allowing a detailed examination of the impact of reference choice. We provide a method for identifying regions that are most affected by non-native alignments, leading to false positives in differential expression analysis, and perform an in depth analysis identifying the extent of expression loss. We also simulate several data sets to identify best practices for non-native reference use.


    I hope this helps, please let me know if I can help with anything!
    Thank you so much. Let me digest the paper.

    Leave a comment:


  • aprice67
    replied
    I recently published a paper on this exact topic. It show how alignment to non-native reference genomes influences outcomes and gives best practices for doing it. I used an e-coli data set in here too.


    Sequence read alignment to a reference genome is a fundamental step in many genomics studies. Accuracy in this fundamental step is crucial for correct interpretation of biological data. In cases where two or more closely related bacterial strains are being studied, a common approach is to simply map reads from all strains to a common reference genome, whether because there is no closed reference for some strains or for ease of comparison. The assumption is that the differences between bacterial strains are insignificant enough that the results of differential expression analysis will not be influenced by choice of reference. Genes that are common among the strains under study are used for differential expression analysis, while the remaining genes, which may fail to express in one sample or the other because they are simply absent, are analyzed separately. In this study, we investigate the practice of using a common reference in transcriptomic analysis. We analyze two multi-strain transcriptomic data sets that were initially presented in the literature as comparisons based on a common reference, but which have available closed genomic sequence for all strains, allowing a detailed examination of the impact of reference choice. We provide a method for identifying regions that are most affected by non-native alignments, leading to false positives in differential expression analysis, and perform an in depth analysis identifying the extent of expression loss. We also simulate several data sets to identify best practices for non-native reference use.


    I hope this helps, please let me know if I can help with anything!

    Leave a comment:


  • illuminaGA
    replied
    Originally posted by GenoMax View Post
    You probably could, as long as the alignments work reasonably well and you use the same reference for all the samples being compared.

    You were thinking of assembling the data otherwise and then using it as a reference?
    Thanks. I will try.

    Yes, I was thinking about assembly the transcripts first based on the reference-free strategies.

    Leave a comment:


  • GenoMax
    replied
    You probably could, as long as the alignments work reasonably well and you use the same reference for all the samples being compared.

    You were thinking of assembling the data otherwise and then using it as a reference?

    Leave a comment:


  • Can I use E. coli K strains reference for B strains Differential Gene Exp analysis?

    Dear All, I currently have a project for E. coli B strains Differential Gene Exp analysis. I did some search only found genome ref for K strains. So I am wondering Can I use E. coli K strains reference for B strains Differential Gene Exp analysis? Or just do a ref-free assembly?
    Thank you so much.

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, 10-15-2026, 10:52 AM
0 responses
16 views
0 reactions
Last Post SEQadmin2  
Started by SEQadmin2, 10-14-2026, 05:39 AM
0 responses
21 views
0 reactions
Last Post SEQadmin2  
Started by SEQadmin2, 10-13-2026, 09:56 AM
0 responses
22 views
0 reactions
Last Post SEQadmin2  
Started by SEQadmin2, 10-09-2026, 11:14 AM
0 responses
27 views
0 reactions
Last Post SEQadmin2  
Working...