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

Support for running everything in PE mode without merging #64

Closed
apeltzer opened this issue Oct 17, 2018 · 5 comments
Closed

Support for running everything in PE mode without merging #64

apeltzer opened this issue Oct 17, 2018 · 5 comments

Comments

@apeltzer
Copy link
Member

We should be able to run datasets without merging reads and just clipping etc. pp.

@alexhbnr
Copy link
Contributor

Keep in mind that if you want to implement to run datasets without merging, i.e. keeping PE reads as separate mates, you would need to re-implement the extracting the (un-)mapped reads, too.

Currently, it is implemented in a way that the BWA output is filtered for the SAM flag "is_unmapped". However, it happens regularly that BWA ends up aligning one mate of a pair but cannot align the other one. Simply filtering for whether a read is unmapped would rip apart two mates in this example. To avoid that you would need to filter differently to extract mapped reads, e.g. for being either properly paired for paired reads and not paired and not unmapped for single reads. This kind of edge case doesn't happen to often, but still happens regularly enough (approx. 0.01% of the reads at least in my recent experiment that made me aware of this issue).

I personally do the more complex filtering with the powerful tool bam-mangle (https://bitbucket.org/ustenzel/biohazard-tools), which allows you filter your reads in a DSL way using the concatenation of boolean expressions, but it is written in Haskell and might be a pain to get it into a bioconda recipe.

@apeltzer
Copy link
Member Author

Thanks @alexhbnr for bringing this up! I think we might not even need to do this, as the use case is quite rare in general or not?

@jfy133
Copy link
Member

jfy133 commented Feb 14, 2019 via email

@jfy133
Copy link
Member

jfy133 commented Feb 14, 2019 via email

@apeltzer
Copy link
Member Author

apeltzer commented Mar 5, 2019

Fixed in #159

@apeltzer apeltzer closed this as completed Mar 5, 2019
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

3 participants