Unconfigured Ad

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

    #1

    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

    • 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, 10-22-2026, 11:13 AM
    0 responses
    34 views
    0 reactions
    Last Post SEQadmin2  
    Started by SEQadmin2, 10-22-2026, 10:48 AM
    0 responses
    24 views
    0 reactions
    Last Post SEQadmin2  
    Started by SEQadmin2, 10-15-2026, 10:52 AM
    0 responses
    41 views
    0 reactions
    Last Post SEQadmin2  
    Started by SEQadmin2, 10-14-2026, 05:39 AM
    0 responses
    45 views
    0 reactions
    Last Post SEQadmin2  
    Working...