randomreads.sh simulated mates are far away

I am simulating test reads with randomreads.sh from BBMap package.

My command is

/Software/bbmap/randomreads.sh ref=C_glabrata_CBS138_current_chromosomes.fasta out1=read1.fastq out2=read2.fastq build=1 length=10 reads=2 coverage=-1 replacenoref=t simplenames=t seed=-1 paired=t metagenome=t addpairnum=t

The output is:

for read1

@0_+106297_106306_ChrM_C_glabrata_CBS138 (1402899 nucleotides) 1:
AGGTTTTAAT
+
989945?446
@1-_438159_438168_ChrJ_C_glabrata_CBS138 (1195129 nucleotides) 1:
ATATCTTCCT
+
AA?CB?@bcb`

for read2 :

@0_-761178_761187_ChrM_C_glabrata_CBS138 (1402899 nucleotides) 2:
AGCAGAGAGA
+
?>64844:64
@1+_646646_646655_ChrJ_C_glabrata_CBS138 (1195129 nucleotides) 2:
TGCCAGTTTC
+
??B@A?><@>

As far as I understand the reads @0 from read1 and @0 from read2 correspond to the read pair. However based on their coordinates they are super far away form each other. Is this a normal behaviour of the software?

Thanks

P.S. Hope Brian Bushnell will see this post :)

bbmap

• 1,995 views • link

updated 8.1 years ago by h.mon

• written 8.1 years ago by grant.hovhannisyan

Is there a reason you have metagenome=t set? 10 bp reads don't make much sense either.

• 1 views • link

written 8.1 years ago by GenoMax

in this test case - no, there is no reason. But actually for my pipeline I will need that option to simulate RNASeq reads distribution. By the way, in case of large transcriptomes (like for human), that option extremely slows down the simulation speed. I guess it worth for a separate question.

• 1 views • link

written 8.1 years ago by grant.hovhannisyan

Trying to simulate a metagenome (while providing a single reference) may be causing the strange behavior. Can you remove that option and see if this look more reasonable?

@Brian had these notes on metagenome simulations:

metagenome will assign each scaffold a random exponential variable, which decides the probability that a read be generated from that scaffold. So, if you concatenate together 20 bacterial genomes, you can run randomreads and get a metagenomic-like distribution. It could also be used for RNA-seq when using a transcriptome reference.

The coverage is decided on a per-reference-sequence level, so if a bacterial assembly has more than one contig, you may want to glue them together first with fuse.sh before concatenating them with the other references.

• 1 views • link

written 8.1 years ago by GenoMax

Thanks @genomax. It seems that mininsert=0 solved the issue. From your comment, it also makes sense for me why it takes so long to simulate data for human transcriptome with metagenome=t. Do you have experience with large transcriptomes and randomreads.sh? For me it takes ca 15 min to simulate 100 reads.

• 1 views • link

written 8.1 years ago by grant.hovhannisyan

Did you try to simulate longer reads, like 100bp or 250bp?

• 1 views • link

written 8.1 years ago by h.mon

For the question of my original post, so yes - with longer reads there are no problems, because apparently you always get a positive values for insert sizes. But for speed of simulating large transcriptomes, so I am trying now with longer reads and larger number of reads.

• 1 views • link

written 8.1 years ago by grant.hovhannisyan

1 answer

Indeed the paired reads seem really far apart. randomreads.sh help does not explain how read length controls default insert size, but you can control insert size with the parameters:

mininsert=          Controls minimum insert length.  Default depends on read length.
maxinsert=          Controls maximum insert length.  Default depends on read length.
triangle=t          Make a triangular insert size distribution.
flat=f              Make a roughly flat insert size distribution..
superflat=f         Make a perfectly flat insert size distribution.
gaussian=f          Make a bell-shaped insert size distribution, with 
                    standard deviation of (maxinsert-mininsert)/6.

• 1 views • link

written 8.1 years ago by h.mon

It seems I have found a reason. When you specify a very short read length (for example 10), the software prints to stdout this line insert size=-80-120. I think this negative insert size messes up everything. And you are right, it is not mentioned how the insert size is calculated based on read length.

EDIT: OK, it seems that setting mininsert=0 fixes the issue. Seems that its a bug.

• 1 views • link

written 8.1 years ago by grant.hovhannisyan