Thank you for pointing that out.
In this situation, I think a cross-post was helpful (since my interpretation was different than provided in that answer), but it is definitely helpful to have access to both sets of answers here!
I have 6 mouse RNA-Seq data, and use STAR for the alignment and featureCounts for the quantification. The command I run featureCoutns is below.
rc <- featureCounts(files = c("Chuong753.bam", "Chuong754.bam", "Chuong755.bam", "Chuong756.bam", "Chuong757.bam", "Chuong758.bam"), annot.ext = "mm10ncbiRefSeqCurated.gtf", isGTFAnnotationFile = TRUE, GTF.featureType = "exon", GTF.attrType = "gene_id", minMQS = 10, strandSpecific = 0, nthreads = 6, verbose = TRUE)
I found that there are a lot of Unassigned_MappingQuality reads (the detail below). Should I set minMQS=3 or 0 to increase the number of Assigned reads? Many thanks.
> rc$stat
Status Chuong753 Chuong754 Chuong755 Chuong756 Chuong757 Chuong758
1 Assigned 28552790 19795064 26274194 26601820 21264775 21703604
2 Unassigned_Unmapped 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 Unassigned_MappingQuality 10233734 6718392 10369784 9299763 9249801 12905108
4 Unassigned_Chimera 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 Unassigned_FragmentLength 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 Unassigned_Duplicate 0 0 0 0 0 0
7 Unassigned_MultiMapping 0 0 0 0 0 0
8 Unassigned_Secondary 0 0 0 0 0 0
9 Unassigned_Nonjunction 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 Unassigned_NoFeatures 2596367 1732967 2577948 1882419 2235492 2757615
11 Unassigned_Overlapping_Length 0 0 0 0 0 0
12 Unassigned_Ambiguity 237389 166711 228953 216951 178357 218899
The question was also asked on Bioconductor
https://support.bioconductor.org/p/117597/
and was answered by the developer. The recommendation is not to set a minMQS filter at all for RNA-seq analyses.
Thank you for pointing that out.
In this situation, I think a cross-post was helpful (since my interpretation was different than provided in that answer), but it is definitely helpful to have access to both sets of answers here!
Unfortunately, I can't really say for certain what you should do - that can vary from project-to-project.
I would typically iteratively inform upstream decisions from downstream results (so, if you see something that needs to be fixed, you can focus on seeing the effect of changing a parameter on something that most clearly seems wrong).
I'm also not sure about your reference. I would typically expect this to be for an annotated genome reference. However, if this is transcriptome alignment and/or a de novo assembly + annotation, perhaps that could be part of the cause?
I'm also not entirely certain how serious this issue is: if you pick a threshold (such as FPKM > 0.1), do you detect expression in >60% of your genes? Or, what fraction of genes still have at least a certain number of counts (1,10, 50, etc.)?
Log in to answer this question.