Thank you for your response. I was using an older version, I updated my version to the current one - 38.44 and I get correctly merged reads!
I used vsearch for that example, I think they do account for errors, not sure though.
Hello,
I have some paired end (2x150 bps) RNA-Seq reads from MiSeq for a viral genome. I need to merge the reads for a downstream analysis.(Also, since I noticed that when I merge my reads, there are a lot of reads which have a high overlap rate, merging them makes sense) -
bbmerge.sh in1=R1.fastq in2=R2.fastq out=merged.fastq outu1=R1_unmerged.fastq outu2=R2_unmerged.fastq
Here is the terminal output of bbmerge I get -
Pairs: 3328768
Joined: 2925342 87.881%
Ambiguous: 370409 11.128%
No Solution: 33017 0.992%
Too Short: 0 0.000%
Avg Insert: 176.0
Standard Deviation: 44.0
Mode: 147
Insert range: 35 - 293
90th percentile: 243
75th percentile: 204
50th percentile: 167
25th percentile: 142
10th percentile: 126
Now, I use bwa to align to my reference genome allowing secondary alignments and there are a lot of cases where a read does align to multiple regions on the genome. When I was going over the alignments, I found some strange behaviour of the merged reads Where I see -
@M02091:32:000000000-C28N4:1:1106:22793:14654 1:N:0:7
GTCTTTGGGTATACATTTGAACCCTAATAAAACCAAACGTTGGGGCTACTCCCTTAACTTCATGGGATATGTAATTGGAAGTTGGGGTACTTTACCACAGGAACATATTGTAATGAAACTCAAGCAATGTTTTCGGAAACTGCCTGTAAAT
+
DCEEEFFFEBFFGGGGGGGGGGHGHHHHHHHHHGHHHHGHHHHGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH
@M02091:32:000000000-C28N4:1:1106:22793:14654 2:N:0:7
AAAGAATTGTGGGTCTTTTGGGCTTTGCTGCCCCTTTTACACAATGTGGCTATCCTGCTTTGACAGACTTTCCAATCAATAGGTCTATTTACAGGCAGTTTCCGAAAACATTGCTTGAGTTTCATTACAATATGTTCCTGTGGTAAAGTAC
+
CCDDDFFFFFFCGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHGHHHHHHHHHGHHGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHGHGHHHHHGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHF
Merged read is -
AAAGAATTGTGGGTCTTTTGGGCTTTGCTGCCCCTTTTACACAATGTGGCTATCCTGCTTTGA
I tried using alternative merging softwares like vsearch and flash as well to compare my results and interestingly, using both flash and vsearch, I see this this read pair to be merged correctly (see below) but a similar case comes up with a different example -
AAAGAATTGTGGGTCTTTTGGGCTTTGCTGCCCCTTTTACACAATGTGGCTATCCTGCTTTGACAGACTTTCCAATCAATAGGTCTATTTACAGGCAGTTTCCGAAAACATTGCTTGAGTTTCATTACAATATGTTCCTGTGGTAAAGTACCCCAACTTTCAATTACATAACCCATGAAGTTAAGGGAGTAGCCCCAACGTTTGGTTTTATTAGGGTTCAAATGTATACCCAAAGAC
My command line for v search is -
vsearch --fastq_mergepairs R1.fastq --reverse R2.fastq --eetabbedout error_stats --fastqout merged.fastq --fastqout_notmerged_fwd fw_unmerged.fastq --fastqout_notmerged_rev rev_unmerged.fastq
My command line for flash is -
flash R1.fastq R2.fastq -M 151
Which version of BBTools are you using? I just tested the sequence you provided as example and it bbmerge.sh (BBTools 38.43) merged the pairs correctly:
@M02091:32:000000000-C28N4:1:1106:22793:14654 1:N:0:7 GTCTTTGGGTATACATTTGAACCCTAATAAAACCAAACGTTGGGGCTACTCCCTTAACTTCATGGGATATGTAATTGGAAGTTGGGGTACTTTACCACAGGAACATATTGTAATGAAACTCAAGCAATGTTTTCGGAAACTGCCTGTAAATAGACCTATTGATTGGAAAGTCTGTCAAAGCAGGATAGCCACATTGTGTAAAAGGGGCAGCAAAGCCCAAAAGACCCACAATTCTTT + DCEEEFFFEBFFGGGGGGGGGGHGHHHHHHHHHGHHHHGHHHHGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHGJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHGHHGHHHHHHHHHGHHHHHHHHHHHGGGGGGGGGGCFFFFFFDDDCC
In addition, the merged read you showed as example has a very strange substitution at position 160. At this position the reads do not overlap, so the consensus should correspond to read 1. However, there is a T at the consensus read, while it is a C at the original read 1. Is the example you showed from vsearch or flash? Does any of them perform some form of error correction?
Thank you for your response. I was using an older version, I updated my version to the current one - 38.44 and I get correctly merged reads!
I used vsearch for that example, I think they do account for errors, not sure though.
Which older version of BBTools? It would be interesting to know the version affected.
Log in to answer this question.