From sanger sequencing result, the forward strand sequence is slightly different ( mismatch) from reverse one. Which strand should be considered for detection of mutation with reference sequence?
When they aligned together, two different mismatch were found in position no 227 G> and 245 C> in forward strand seq(1st image) in position no 290 C> and 308 T> in reverse strand sequence (2nd image, reverse complement)
3 answers
The second sequence is the reverse complement sequence of the first one. So the variant 227G>A is 309 C>T in the second. And 245C>G is 290 G>C in the second. Looks all good to me.
Did you look at the chromatograms? Are there any visible artifacts in the region where the difference is located? Did you check the quality? Is the difference in a region of low quality? Differences are common in such cases, but in general it is easy to tell apart the correct base call from the wrong one.
Otherwise, you need to provide more information. You could post snippets of the chromatograms, for example.
When they aligned together, two different mismatch were found in 227 G> and 245 C> in forward strand seq(1st image) and 290 C> and 308 T> in reverse strand sequence (2nd image, reverse complement)
Log in to answer this question.
-
galaxy prinseq trimmming sequence
written by Rob •
-
BLASTn protein sequence fasta file
written by Rob •
-
Reads mapped on wrong strand
written by qstefano •
-
How to download BED file with all the fields?
written by kimkes25 •
-
how to change the strand?
written by nayeona.hi
-
How to make a centimorgan ruler?
written by wkmustahs21 •
-
how to use output of cnvkit to plot
written by guofengwang123 •
-
mummer dot plot
written by David
-
any idea about histogram(graphic) clustering?
written by boaty
-
Protein coding annotation from UCSC
written by tim.ivanov.92 •
Are you sure? That's not normal.
Here, sequence chromatogram is added. Please look into it. When they aligned together, two different mismatch were found in position no 227 G> and 245 C> in forward strand seq(1st image) in position no 290 C> and 308 T> in reverse strand sequence (2nd image, reverse complement)
Please tell me this is not patient data you are putting up on the web!
Actually, that was thalassemia patients data.
Did the patient consent to that?