-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 101
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
Very low mapping efficiency #674
Comments
I just had a look at your samples, and quality wise they look fine. In contrast to the Accel Swift kit, in this case Read 1 appeared to be G-poor, while Read 2 was C-poor. This would be the reason main why you are observing a low mapping efficiency. Indeed, adding the parameter So the good news is that all is fine, you just need to adapt the parameters a little. This is the command I used:
|
Thanks so much! We used the IDT/Swift single-cell methyl-seq kit: https://sfvideo.blob.core.windows.net/sitefinity/docs/default-source/protocol/xgen-adaptase-module-protocol.pdf?sfvrsn=a5a7e007_10 |
Thanks! |
Hi,
I'm running bismark aligner / bowtie on samples prepared with IDT methylseq (used to be from Swift adaptase). These samples were prepared in the same way as prior samples that had good mapping efficiency, but this time they have low mapping efficiency (< 1%).
Because nothing changed for these samples relative to prior in term sof library prep, the recommendations for figuring out the reasons for low mapping efficiency don't apply: https://felixkrueger.github.io/Bismark/faq/low_mapping/
FASTQ analysis shows I'm correctly trimming the noisy parts of the reads. It is possible to share a subset of reads in case you can help figure out the issue?
Thanks!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: