Unconfigured Ad

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • mr_boourns
    Junior Member
    • Apr 2010
    • 2

    pileup output different using Maq and Samtools commands

    Dear all,

    We are trying to detect allelic specific expression with RNA-seq data by mapping against a masked genome (with the reference allele substituted for N's at known SNP positions). We have followed the approach of the Degner/Pritchard paper (2009) where they perform the mapping step using Maq. Our approach has been to use the pileup command in Maq to derive the allele counts at each position. We thought we were getting good results. However, we recently realized that the counts from the Maq produced pileup file do not agree with the counts from a visual inspection of the BAM file produced from the mapping. (This BAM file was produced by converting the .map file from Maq to a .bam file using Samtools). However, when we use the Samtools pileup command on this BAM file, the counts in the pileup file do agree with a visual inspection of the counts when viewing the BAM file in a genome browser.

    For instance, for the Maq produced pileup file we get 24 T's and 0 C's at a particular base, whereas in the Samtools produced pileup file we get
    14C's and 35T's.

    Does anyone have any idea of what is happening here? Should we trust the Maq or the SAM tools results?

    Thanks so much for the help,

    John
  • colindaven
    Senior Member
    • Oct 2008
    • 417

    #2
    I would use Samtools as it is under active development and Maq, to my knowledge, is not any more.

    However for SNP calling try the mpileup pipeline described on the Samtools webpage instead of using pileup. It's important to generate the I16 info fields for variant calling in our experience.

    Comment

    Latest Articles

    Collapse

    • 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, 07-02-2026, 11:08 AM
    0 responses
    7 views
    0 reactions
    Last Post SEQadmin2  
    Started by SEQadmin2, 06-30-2026, 05:37 AM
    0 responses
    12 views
    0 reactions
    Last Post SEQadmin2  
    Started by SEQadmin2, 06-26-2026, 11:10 AM
    0 responses
    20 views
    0 reactions
    Last Post SEQadmin2  
    Started by SEQadmin2, 06-17-2026, 06:09 AM
    0 responses
    54 views
    0 reactions
    Last Post SEQadmin2  
    Working...