Yeah they look like this after quality trimming, so the lengths varies a lot. So I can assume they could be poly-A tail?
Hello,
In quality control of reads, why do we look at the GC% per base position? I have the following result
Gem. lengtes: 75
Max. lengte: 101
Min. lengte: 24
GC globaal: 32%
GC per base position:
[32, 33, 33, 33, 33, 33, 33, 32, 33, 33, 33, 33, 33, 33, 33, 32, 32, 32, 33, 33, 32, 33, 33, 33, 33, 32, 32, 32, 32, 32, 31, 31, 32, 31, 31, 31, 31, 30, 30, 30, 30, 30, 30, 30, 30, 30, 29, 29, 28, 28, 28, 28, 28, 27, 27, 27, 27, 27, 27, 26, 26, 25, 25, 25, 25, 24, 24, 24, 23, 23, 22, 22, 21, 21, 21, 20, 19, 19, 18, 18, 17, 16, 15, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 1, 0, 0]
Looking at the GC per base position, I can see that the GC% per base position decreases. So what can I conclude from this? Thank you in advance!
1 answer
In your case it can be a poly-A tail or something, did you trim of the primers/adapters and everything after the primers/adapters? Or will this still look like this after quality trimming? Are all the reads the same length?
I think you mostly use GC-content as a quality check if you compare it with the GC-content of a reference. So you expect that a certain species or chromosoom has a certain "specific" GC%. If you expect 40% on chromosoom x and it is 75% something is off.
EDIT:
I just noticed that there is a big difference in shortest and longest read so that plays a roll
You could scan/trim for polyA and see if the length reduces even further.
No you can not assume they could be poly-A tail. That's something you can see in de sequences. But if it are not poly-A tails it does not mean your data is wrong. You just have this result because the differences in length.
Log in to answer this question.
Looks like it is just biased because of the read length. After 24bp the number of read is decreasing, as the GC%.
I also believe that there is a rule that you should mention that it is about a school assignment. Maybe a moderator can confirm that.