-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 17
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Lower than expected coverage for illumina paired end reads #22
Comments
When you say you get 240x instead of 250x is that based on the rasusa logs or some other way of calculating this? The way rasusa subsamples for paired reads is it gathers all of the read lengths for the first fastq file (R1), and randomly selects reads until the total length of those sampled reads is half of the required total read length for the given genome size and coverage. It then outputs those sampled reads and their mate in R2. So there is an implicit assumption here that the mate has the same read length. So if you're seeing 240x instead of 250x that suggests your R2 might have had more bases trimmed than R1... |
Hi, |
I would suggest summing the read length of R1 and R2 and randomly selecting read pairs until the total length of those sampled reads matches the required total read length for the given genome size and coverage. |
Ok, that makes sense then.
This is a more accurate solution to the than what I currently do for sure. I'll look at trying to change the implementation to do this. |
Great. Thank you :) |
Hi, |
Sorry @ilyavs , I am currently writing up my PhD thesis so I don't have a huge amount of spare time. However, it is still very much high on my list of things to do so hopefully I can get around to it soon. |
Hi @ilyavs, would be able to do me a favour and test out b72405e and see if it resolves this? You can either build from the source in that commit, or if you are using a container you can use the following image
|
This should be sorted in version 0.4.0. Let me know if there are still problems |
Hello,
![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/12219680/119608912-67c1db00-bdff-11eb-931a-90dad286ccd0.png)
I am using rasusa extensively in my illumina paired end pipelines. I noticed that sometimes, I get significantly lower coverage than the one I gave as a parameter. For example, I subsample to 250x and get 240x. This is somewhat of a problem for my applications.
From an anecdotic check, I see that this might have something to do with poor quality reads that I am quality trimming to minimum length with cutadapt. This results in a highly skewed read length distribution. Here is an example:
Can this issue be resolved within the scope of this project?
Thanks,
Ilya.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: