But doesn't it still not explain why the percentages of multimapped reads accross featurecounts and star are different? Because -outFilterMultimapNmax 10 will still include the reads as multimapped (even though they become aligned in star). I am having the same issue, where my starmultimapping is 20, but featurecounts has it at 80%
Multi-mapping High with featureCounts but not STAR
Hi everyone, I am sequencing neurons isolated from rat. I'm working with a limited amount of material, so using Nugen Ovation Universal library kits. The QC using FastQC looks ok. My library is paired-end with 75bp reads. I ran STAR using this command:
STAR --runThreadN 3 \
--genomeDir ../genomes/rn6/Ensembl/star2 \
--readFilesCommand gunzip -c \
--readFilesIn ${R1} ${R2} \
--outFileNamePrefix starMapped/${job_name} \
--outSAMtype BAM Unsorted \
--seedSearchStartLmax 40 \
--outFilterScoreMinOverLread 0.5 \
--outFilterMatchNminOverLread 0.5
My unique mapped reads is ~70-90% for all samples with multi-mapped reads 7-15%.
I used the same GTF file to then make the count table using featureCounts using this command:
featureCounts -T 6 -p -t exon -g gene_name -a ../genomes/rn6/Ensembl/Rattus_norvegicus.Rnor_6.0.93.gtf -o combined_counts.txt *.bam
But my % assigned reads is only 33% and unassigned_multimap reads are ~30% of my reads and unassigned_NoFeature are the other third. I don't understand how the number of multi-mapping reads and mapping can be so different between the two packages given I am using the same GFT file. What's going on here? And why is the number of unassigned reads so high with featureCounts?
• 7,341 views
•
link
updated
by
GenoMax
•
written
by
garbuzov •
•
written
by
garbuzov •
1 answer
Can you confirm that you are using the BAM files generated by STAR for counting with featureCounts? If you can post detailed STAR stats that would be great.
Since you did not change the -outFilterMultimapNmax parameter for STAR it is set to 10 (default) so STAR is reporting up to 10 alignments per such reads. Those will not be counted by featureCounts unless you turn the -M option on.
Log in to answer this question.
More posts like this
-
Human transcriptome STAR multi-mapped problem
written by Валентин •
-
Multimapped reads in STAR alignment and subread::featureCounts()
written by Saran •
-
[STAR] Bam file show more reads than the mapping log file after mapping
written by Caconym •
-
How should I deal with my RNAseq result with high % of mutiple aligned reads?
written by Simon Ahn •
-
How to deal with high % of reads mapped to multiple loci on STAR?
written by Simon Ahn •
-
STAR mapper for arabidopsis Thaliana
written by niranjanpandeshwar •
-
44% Successfully Assigned Fragments with featureCounts after 85% uniquely mapped reads with STAR
written by garbuzov •
-
Set the insert size threshold in STAR
written by alvarocentron91 •
-
low mappability in single cell rna-seq data?
written by ccagg
-
Segmentation fault STAR Mapping
written by ahmedebit •
You can obtain counts directly from STAR with
--quantMode GeneCounts, this quantification should be similar to that obtained with featureCounts. You didn't use-sin your featureCounts command, are you sure the Nugen Ovation results in an unstranded library?Good point (see this, under
Data analysis) :I have a similar problem to yours. I also used the Rnor6 gtf annotation from ENSEMBL for alignment and quantification. The report from
read_distribution.pyfromRSeQCpackage indicates that ~20-30% reads were aligned to intronic or intergenic regions. You can also try to see your results:read_distribution.py: http://rseqc.sourceforge.net/#read-distribution-pyI suspect this is because the Rat annotation file is still incomplete compared with human and mouse
You can try StringTie, it will assemble novel transcripts based on the genome, and quantify known and novel transcripts.
Thank you! I have used
stringtie. But I still want to know that why there are so many reads were aligned to intronic region, is this normal for human data? Are there any way to determine whether this is due to the sequencing data or to my analyzing pipeline?(I just analyzed a group of human data today. Uniquely mapping rate looks well (~90%). While featureCount can only assign ~40% reads successfully. Report from
read_distribution.pyshows that there are about ~20% reads.)Thanks!