Hi,
Could you please share your opinion about HISAT-Stringtie2-Ballgown pipeline? I am going to follow this pipeline and still in a little confusion regarding how it performs compared to others.
Thanks
Hi, everyone,
I am a newhand working on RNA-seq data. Tophat-cufflinks method is widely used in analyzing RNA-seq data. I have installed these tools, and now need to run them. From tophat and cufflinks websites, I learned some basics as below, but I am not sure if my commands are right. I am wondering could anyone offers a pipeline or gives me a guidance, particularly the command options? THANKS a lot!
Step 1: generate a tophat_out folder with bam files
tophat <index> sample1_1.fq sample1_2.fq
tophat <index> sample2_1.fq sample2_2.fq
Step 2: generate .gtf files
cufflinks sample1/accepted_hits.bam
cufflinks sample2/accepted_hits.bam
Step 3: prepare a text file named assemblies.txt with following gtf files
sample1/transcript.gtf
sample2/transcript.gtf
Step 4: run cuffmerge to generate merged.gtf
cuffmerge assemblies.txt
Step 5: discovery of novel transcript
cuffcompare merged.gtf
Step 6: compare gene expressions of two samples
cuffdiff merged.gtf sample1/accepted_hits.bam sample2/accepted_hits.bam
I wouldn't recommend using TopHat/Cufflinks. While they used to be the go-to option for RNA-Seq analysis, now a days there are much better alternatives out there, particularly STAR. Conveniently I just made a figure showing a short overview of my protocol, so I linked that below. Do note that RSEM might be a better option for getting read counts, but it does require that you run your STAR mapping through its wrapper (which is why I went with a more general approach).
Steps:

Hope that helps you, and feel free to shoot me some questions. Best of luck!
Hi,
Could you please share your opinion about HISAT-Stringtie2-Ballgown pipeline? I am going to follow this pipeline and still in a little confusion regarding how it performs compared to others.
Thanks
As far as I am aware, there has not been a published study done comparing HISAT2 to STAR (HISAT came out in 2015, so it is relatively new overall), so I can't really appropriately compare them in a non-biased manner. But I imagine that HISAT2 wouldn't perform as well when it comes to sliced alignments since it uses the BWA algorithm to map reads. One of the things that is nice about HISAT2 is that it has a much smaller footprint than STAR, so if you're doing a lot of RNA-Seq analytics it could be very beneficial to decreased the required storage space for each sample run. HISAT2 also reports that it is slightly faster than STAR, but I would take that with a grain of salt since the author's were the ones who selected what datsets to use when bench marking the different mappers. Moral of the story, I still recommend STAR as the first choice but I consider HISAT2 to be a reasonably good second place holder. As for the rest of the pipeline I have no idea, I have never even heard of those two(2) software suites so it wouldn't be fair for me to comment one way or the other on their abilities.
This is a good read, if you haven't gone through it yet: Current state-of-the-art for RNA-Seq gene / transcript expression quantification OR just the tools of preference
I also recommend you read this paper if you are interested in comparing the different read normalization methods: A comprehensive evaluation of normalization methods for Illumina high-throughput RNA sequencing data analysis.
Thank you very much for your detail explanation (and your recommended article)!
Hi, It's an old thread but I found a paper talking about this recently: Comparative assessment of methods for the computational inference of transcript isoform abundance from RNA-seq data. In its conclution part, it said "Importantly, our analysis indicates that the explicit quantification of transcript isoforms leads to more accurate estimates of gene expression levels compared to the ‘count-based’ methods that are broadly used currently". But they evaluated the count-based method with "bedtools intersect", not htseq-count or featureCounts, so I am a bit skeptical of this conclusion. What do you think about this?
Thanks
Have you seen this protocol? It is very helpful.
http://www.nature.com/nprot/journal/v7/n3/full/nprot.2012.016.html
Thank you very much, Paul and Parham.
Log in to answer this question.
You should really add some information on your data, in order to give proper guidance on what you need for your analysis.
HERE IS MY PIPELINE FOR ucsc.hg19 reference genome and ucsc refgene gtf file:
This I repeat for all samples.
And finally cuffdiff.
And finally I run R - CummeRbund and have issue explained above . Sorry maybe for stupid questions.
Paul.
I'm trying to accomplish the same task, but I'm new at this field, so, how do I get the refgene gtf file and the ucsc.hg19 reference genome?
What organism?
For homo sapiens too.
Have you done a bit of Googling?!
http://hgdownload.cse.ucsc.edu/downloads.html#human
Yes, I did, but I was unable to find the .gtf file and also, at the beginning I thought it would be some specific kind of file other then the "normal" reference genome of human. Now I understood what it takes, thank you, and I'm sorry for my lack of knowledge at this point.
No worries. Hope it helped =)