You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Hey Brent and everyone, thank you for all the awesome tools.
We have some high coverage panel sequencing data, but checking the depth of the regions using mosdepth, bedtools and sambamba, give quite a range of results (results obtained running these commands through snakemake file).
These tools are run with the default setting, what might cause such a huge difference in depth calculations?
Thanks in advance!
Hi Isaac, if you look through the issues, there are a lot of questions like this. I think that mosdepth does a good job of giving a sane answer. Reasons why the tools can differ:
mosdepth does not look at base-quality so it will count all bases as covered even if they have very low quality
mosdepth has different defaults for mapping-quality--I think by default it includes all reads
mosdepth does not double-count overlapping pairs. So if r1 and r2 from a fragment overlap, it will only count the overlapped bases once, not twice. You can skip this by using --fast-mode.
I suggest to try mosdepth with different values for mapping-quality that make sense to you, and to try --fast-mode and see how much difference you see. I'm not sure how bedtools is getting so much higher coverage, but I suspect you'll get mosdpeth and sambamba to nearly agree with --fastmode
Hey Brent and everyone, thank you for all the awesome tools.
We have some high coverage panel sequencing data, but checking the depth of the regions using mosdepth, bedtools and sambamba, give quite a range of results (results obtained running these commands through snakemake file).
These tools are run with the default setting, what might cause such a huge difference in depth calculations?
Thanks in advance!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: