Hi all,
I'm just wondering about the difference in read numbers across samples on the Illumina miseq platform.
On the 454 analysis of the read numbers showed a tight bell shaped curve with a high peak. However with the Illumina miseq, the curve is much wider (the coverage varies from very high to very low). I understand that the Illumina gives a far rather number of reads but this doesn't explain the high degree of coverage variation across the samples
Does anyone know why this occur? Any methods to prevent the varying coverage?
Thanks in advance
•
written
by
wizard-14 •
1 answer
Since both methods generate a lot of data I don't think the shape of distribution would change, after all these are all very large samples already.
I suspect library preparation as the source of the discrepancy. Different amount of DNA ends up being sequenced for different samples.
•
written
by
Istvan Albert
Log in to answer this question.
-
Analysing gene CNV from TCGA using TCGAbiolinks
written by Matt •
-
The Duplicates Dilemma of ChIP-Seq
written by ilovesuperheroes1993 •
-
Correcting homopolymer lengths with RNAseq data
written by annil •
-
Using np to target subsampling
written by andrew •
-
miseq losing reads mysteriously between clusters and fastq
written by biostars •
-
Uneven coverage correlated with Alu sequences (and discordant read pairs) in NGS data
written by Obi Griffith
-
Tutorial: InsideDNA: Benchmarking seven most popular genome assemblers
written by shilparaopradeep •
-
Which Illumina data to generate for constructing benchmark SNP / SV genotypes
written by William
-
NIPT data analysis - TruSeq Indexed Adapter sequence reads and GC bias
written by Ning •
-
How Do You Decide When A Sequencing Run Is Too Bad To Have Reliable Information?
written by KCC
Wouldn't you expect a far flatter curve from Illumina machines since you get way more reads (and therefore can picture a wider dynamic range)? Also, could you show the figures of the curves?