Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Clipping reads and reference bias #59

Open
danchubb opened this issue Nov 20, 2019 · 3 comments
Open

Clipping reads and reference bias #59

danchubb opened this issue Nov 20, 2019 · 3 comments

Comments

@danchubb
Copy link

Hi,

We have noticed that the Illumina aligner Isaac soft clips the end of reads that have non-reference bases https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/836171v1. This affects battenberg results so to correct it we have forked a version of allelecounter that removes biased counts by clipping all reads by n bases (e.g. -e 5 end clips 5 bases) https://github.com/danchubb/alleleCount-FixVAF

The main change is in https://github.com/danchubb/alleleCount-FixVAF/blob/dev/c/src/bam_access.c line 131 where the count is skipped if a position is within e bases of the end.

It might be something you'd want to merge in or at least be aware of if you use allelecounter for isaac aligned data.

also, this seemed to be the easiest way of dealing with it in allele counter and I don't think it will break anything else but please let me know if you have a more elegant solution.

Thanks,

Dan

@keiranmraine
Copy link
Contributor

keiranmraine commented Nov 21, 2019

At first this didn't make sense being that soft-clipped are already excluded, however the article makes it more clear.

I don't see anything wrong with the method applied, however raising a pull request would be the best way to proceed... @drjsanger is the gate keeper here

Thank you for contributing!

@keiranmraine
Copy link
Contributor

Specifically section 2.3:

The Isaac --clip-semialigned parameter invokes the soft clipping of read ends until five consecutive bases are matched with the reference genome

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Nov 21, 2019

Looks like a very reasonable addition. As per @keiranmraine suggestion. Please make a pull request, we'll merge it into our codebase. Thank you for contributing @danchubb !

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants