Why does the Pair-End RNA library exhibit a significant disparity between the mapping results of R2 compared to R1?
We conducted total mRNA RNA-seq using Illumina technology and encountered significant disparity in the mapping between R2 and R1. We are considering potential issues with trimming; we utilized FastQC and Fastp. We are exploring other possibilities
• 1,297 views
•
link
updated
by
GenoMax
•
written
by
Carolina •
•
written
by
Carolina •
0 answers
No answers yet.
Log in to answer this question.
More posts like this
-
Pre-processing duplicates in SMARTer-seq data
written by kiki •
-
Ribo-seq Trimming Issue: Massive Read Loss in Paired-end Mode
written by Sammy •
-
Ilumina Low quality bases at first 20 cycles + PHIX problem
written by alenew.am •
-
RNA-seq data compared to qRT-PCR
written by SeoG •
-
PolyA and PolyG sequences in FastQC/MultiQC report
written by kenneditodd •
-
RNASeq data: STAR low alignment score
written by Kumar
-
Tophat problem - R1 and R2 reads mapped to different strandeds of viral genome
written by WZOUXM •
-
Using Trimommatic to only clip adapters on multiple fastq files.
written by imesi •
-
adapter trimming PE RNA reads
written by rahmati.razieh83 •
-
Does the order of input files matter when mapping paired-end strand specific RNA-seq reads?
written by jon.brate
You should provide the code you ran otherwise it will be difficult to help.
Do not align paired-end data independently, if that is what you doing.