User Tools

Site Tools


archive:bioinformatic_tools:bwa

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision
Previous revision
Next revision Both sides next revision
archive:bioinformatic_tools:bwa [2011/05/20 18:48]
svohr [After SeqPrep]
archive:bioinformatic_tools:bwa [2011/05/23 02:25]
svohr [After SeqPrep]
Line 73: Line 73:
 {{:​bioinformatic_tools:​run2_seqprep_template_size_histogram.png|}} {{:​bioinformatic_tools:​run2_seqprep_template_size_histogram.png|}}
  
-These histograms show the mapped lengths for the paired-end templates and the lengths of merged reads from SeqPrep along with the 454 read length distribution for comparison. In each of these, we can see the distinct range for the SeqPrep merged reads and the split between merged and unmerged pairs. Lengths less than 90 are probably incorrect. The higher frequency of these in run 1 can be explained its higher coverage. 
  
-{{:​bioinformatic_tools:​run1_seqprep_histogram.png|}}+The next histogram shows the 454 length distribution with the SeqPrep merged read lengths and the mapped lengths for the paired-end templates. From this we can see that the lengths of the 454 reads are greater than the illumina templates and the short templates lengths are not due to the lengths of the sequences in the 454 reference.
  
-{{:​bioinformatic_tools:​run2_bc07_seqprep_histogram.png|}}+{{:​bioinformatic_tools:​run_all_illumina_v_454_histogram.png|}} 
 + 
 +These histograms show the mapped lengths for the paired-end templates and the lengths of merged reads from SeqPrep. In each of these, we can see the distinct range for the SeqPrep merged reads and the split between merged and unmerged pairs. The counts for the paired-end reads are lower than the counts for merged reads because the paired-end reads had to map to one of the 454 reads. We can see that if the paired-end counts were increased by a factor of 10 (for the 0.1x coverage in the 454 reads) the merged and paired-end reads would form a continuous distribution. Lengths less than 90 may be incorrect. The higher frequency of these in run 1 can be explained its higher coverage. 
 + 
 +In the merged lengths for both run 1 and run 2 barcode 8 there is a gap of 10 lengths (66-75 for run 1, 105-114 for run 2 bc08) where no reads were observed. This is an artifact of SeqPrep'​s two methods for merging reads and the 10 base overlap requirement for merging.  
 + 
 +{{:​bioinformatic_tools:​run1_seqprep_histogram_r2.png|}} 
 + 
 +{{:​bioinformatic_tools:​run2_bc07_seqprep_histogram_r2.png|}} 
 + 
 +{{:​bioinformatic_tools:​run2_bc08_seqprep_histogram_r2.png|}}
  
-{{:​bioinformatic_tools:​run2_bc08_seqprep_histogram.png|}} 
archive/bioinformatic_tools/bwa.txt · Last modified: 2015/09/04 09:06 by 68.180.228.52