- author
- Titus Brown
- date
Nov 2, 2015
How do you measure the quality of your transcriptome? In some of the beginner workshops, we suggested mapping your RNAseq reads back to the transcriptome and counting the fraction that mapped. Transrate takes this kind of idea quite a bit further and measures several read-based metrics.
Transrate Web site + docs: http://hibberdlab.com/transrate/
Transrate preprint: http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/06/27/021626
Start up an m3.xlarge running blank Ubuntu 14.04. (This gives you 15 GB of RAM, plus lots of working disk space on /mnt.)
Log in with MobaXterm or ssh. (See using Amazon docs for help.)
Install the necessary software:
sudo apt-get update && \
sudo apt-get -y install screen git curl gcc make g++ python-dev unzip \
default-jre pkg-config libncurses5-dev r-base-core r-cran-gplots \
python-matplotlib python-pip python-virtualenv sysstat fastqc \
trimmomatic bowtie samtools blast2 cmake libboost-all-dev liblzma-dev \
r-bioc-edgeR hmmer ncbi-blast+-legacy embossInstall khmer:
cd ~/
python2.7 -m virtualenv work
source work/bin/activate
pip install -U setuptools
git clone --branch v2.0 https://github.com/dib-lab/khmer.git
cd khmer
make installNow, grab some test data:
sudo chmod a+rwxt /mnt
mkdir /mnt/data
cd /mnt/data/
curl -O https://s3.amazonaws.com/public.ged.msu.edu/nema-subset.tar.gz
tar xzf nema-subset.tar.gzGrab and install transrate:
cd
curl -O -L https://bintray.com/artifact/download/blahah/generic/transrate-1.0.1-linux-x86_64.tar.gz
tar xzf transrate-1.0.1-linux-x86_64.tar.gz
export PATH=$PATH:$HOME/transrate-1.0.1-linux-x86_64
echo 'export PATH=$PATH:$HOME/transrate-1.0.1-linux-x86_64' >> ~/.bashrc
export PATH=$PATH:$HOME/transrate-1.0.1-linux-x86_64/bin
echo 'export PATH=$PATH:$HOME/transrate-1.0.1-linux-x86_64/bin' >> ~/.bashrc
transrate --install-deps refCreate a working directory:
mkdir /mnt/transrate
cd /mnt/transrateCopy in the data, fixing any long headers that might be leftover from Trinity or Cufflinks or whatnot:
sed -e '/^>.\{81\}/ s/^\(.\{80\}\).*$/\1/' /mnt/data/nema.fa > nema.faRun an initial evaluation of your assembly, without using any reads or reference transcriptome:
transrate -a nema.faYou should see the following output:
[ INFO] 2015-11-01 15:13:17 : Contig metrics:
[ INFO] 2015-11-01 15:13:17 : -----------------------------------
[ INFO] 2015-11-01 15:13:17 : n seqs 198151
[ INFO] 2015-11-01 15:13:17 : smallest 201
[ INFO] 2015-11-01 15:13:17 : largest 17655
[ INFO] 2015-11-01 15:13:17 : n bases 137744672
[ INFO] 2015-11-01 15:13:17 : mean len 695.15
[ INFO] 2015-11-01 15:13:17 : n under 200 0
[ INFO] 2015-11-01 15:13:17 : n over 1k 37271
[ INFO] 2015-11-01 15:13:17 : n over 10k 64
[ INFO] 2015-11-01 15:13:17 : n with orf 46134
[ INFO] 2015-11-01 15:13:17 : mean orf percent 63.77
[ INFO] 2015-11-01 15:13:17 : n90 252
[ INFO] 2015-11-01 15:13:17 : n70 573
[ INFO] 2015-11-01 15:13:17 : n50 1315
[ INFO] 2015-11-01 15:13:17 : n30 2271
[ INFO] 2015-11-01 15:13:17 : n10 4111
[ INFO] 2015-11-01 15:13:17 : gc 0.44
[ INFO] 2015-11-01 15:13:17 : gc skew 0.01
[ INFO] 2015-11-01 15:13:17 : at skew 0.0
[ INFO] 2015-11-01 15:13:17 : cpg ratio 1.73
[ INFO] 2015-11-01 15:13:17 : bases n 0
[ INFO] 2015-11-01 15:13:17 : proportion n 0.0
[ INFO] 2015-11-01 15:13:17 : linguistic complexity 0.13
[ INFO] 2015-11-01 15:13:17 : Contig metrics done in 35 secondsYou can read more about the contig metrics, here.
Let's download the existing reference transcriptome and see how our own assembled transcriptome compares:
curl -O http://cnidarians.bu.edu/stellabase/assembly/NvT1.fasta
transrate -a nema.fa --reference NvT1.fasta(This will take about 20 minutes, note.)
Results:
[ INFO] 2015-11-01 15:42:28 : Comparative metrics:
[ INFO] 2015-11-01 15:42:28 : -----------------------------------
[ INFO] 2015-11-01 15:42:28 : CRBB hits 106203
[ INFO] 2015-11-01 15:42:28 : n contigs with CRBB 106203
[ INFO] 2015-11-01 15:42:28 : p contigs with CRBB 0.54
[ INFO] 2015-11-01 15:42:28 : rbh per reference 0.92
[ INFO] 2015-11-01 15:42:28 : n refs with CRBB 44743
[ INFO] 2015-11-01 15:42:28 : p refs with CRBB 0.39
[ INFO] 2015-11-01 15:42:28 : cov25 19091
[ INFO] 2015-11-01 15:42:28 : p cov25 0.17
[ INFO] 2015-11-01 15:42:28 : cov50 13278
[ INFO] 2015-11-01 15:42:28 : p cov50 0.11
[ INFO] 2015-11-01 15:42:28 : cov75 8519
[ INFO] 2015-11-01 15:42:28 : p cov75 0.07
[ INFO] 2015-11-01 15:42:28 : cov85 6695
[ INFO] 2015-11-01 15:42:28 : p cov85 0.06
[ INFO] 2015-11-01 15:42:28 : cov95 4786
[ INFO] 2015-11-01 15:42:28 : p cov95 0.04
[ INFO] 2015-11-01 15:42:28 : reference coverage 0.16
[ INFO] 2015-11-01 15:42:28 : Comparative metrics done in 1377 seconds
[ INFO] 2015-11-01 15:42:28 : -----------------------------------You can read more about the comparative metrics, here.
A really important note: this analysis can be done not only with a DNA/RNA file of transcripts from your organism, but also with a peptide file from a nearby reference organism.
The most powerful metrics that transrate offers are the read mapping metrics. These look at how the reads actually map to your transcriptome, and how well the transcripts in your transcriptome are supported by the reads.
Next, let's evaluate against reads, prepared as in salmon.rst:
ln -fs ../data/*.?.fq .
LIST1=$(ls -1 *.1.fq | sort -n | awk -vORS=, '{ print $1 }' | sed 's/,$/\n/')
LIST2=$(ls -1 *.2.fq | sort -n | awk -vORS=, '{ print $1 }' | sed 's/,$/\n/')
transrate -a nema.fa --left=$LIST1 --right=$LIST2Results:
[ INFO] 2015-11-03 16:24:39 : Read mapping metrics:
[ INFO] 2015-11-03 16:24:39 : -----------------------------------
[ INFO] 2015-11-03 16:24:39 : fragments 50000
[ INFO] 2015-11-03 16:24:39 : fragments mapped 46378
[ INFO] 2015-11-03 16:24:39 : p fragments mapped 0.93
[ INFO] 2015-11-03 16:24:39 : good mappings 42113
[ INFO] 2015-11-03 16:24:39 : p good mapping 0.84
[ INFO] 2015-11-03 16:24:39 : bad mappings 4265
[ INFO] 2015-11-03 16:24:39 : potential bridges 146
[ INFO] 2015-11-03 16:24:39 : bases uncovered 133517286
[ INFO] 2015-11-03 16:24:39 : p bases uncovered 0.97
[ INFO] 2015-11-03 16:24:39 : contigs uncovbase 198150
[ INFO] 2015-11-03 16:24:39 : p contigs uncovbase 1.0
[ INFO] 2015-11-03 16:24:39 : contigs uncovered 197905
[ INFO] 2015-11-03 16:24:39 : p contigs uncovered 1.0
[ INFO] 2015-11-03 16:24:39 : contigs lowcovered 198133
[ INFO] 2015-11-03 16:24:39 : p contigs lowcovered 1.0
[ INFO] 2015-11-03 16:24:39 : contigs segmented 12
[ INFO] 2015-11-03 16:24:39 : p contigs segmented 0.0
[ INFO] 2015-11-03 16:24:39 : Read metrics done in 196 seconds
[ INFO] 2015-11-03 16:24:39 : No reference provided, skipping comparative diagnostics
[ INFO] 2015-11-03 16:24:39 : TRANSRATE ASSEMBLY SCORE 0.009
[ INFO] 2015-11-03 16:24:39 : -----------------------------------
[ INFO] 2015-11-03 16:24:39 : TRANSRATE OPTIMAL SCORE 0.184
[ INFO] 2015-11-03 16:24:39 : TRANSRATE OPTIMAL CUTOFF 0.1432
[ INFO] 2015-11-03 16:24:40 : good contigs 3332
[ INFO] 2015-11-03 16:24:40 : p good contigs 0.02
[ INFO] 2015-11-03 16:24:40 : Writing contig metrics for each contig to /mnt/transrate/transrate_results/nema/contigs.csv
[ INFO] 2015-11-03 16:25:24 : Writing analysis results to assemblies.csvOf particular note, this analysis may be the analysis you want to try before deciding if you should generate a new transcriptome.
Repeat the above analyses with the transcriptome published in Tulin et al., 2013:
curl -L https://darchive.mblwhoilibrary.org/bitstream/handle/1912/5613/Trinity.fasta > tulin-2013-long.faYou'll need to run the sed command, above, to convert tulin-2013-long.fa into tulin-2013.fa.
Is the Tulin transcriptome better or worse than the more recently assembled one (nema.fa, above)?