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

rRNA counts differ #49

Open
kray02 opened this issue Nov 6, 2020 · 3 comments
Open

rRNA counts differ #49

kray02 opened this issue Nov 6, 2020 · 3 comments
Labels
Legacy Difference For issues pertaining to changes between legacy RNA-SeQC and 2.0.0

Comments

@kray02
Copy link

kray02 commented Nov 6, 2020

Is there any equivalent to the legacy version -BWArRNA using bwa to count rRNA reads? That seems to be a more accurate option.

@francois-a
Copy link
Collaborator

We did not find this to be substantially different for assessing sample quality, and removed this option in v2 for simplicity. Please make sure rRNA intervals are properly defined in the GTF annotation you're using.

@kray02
Copy link
Author

kray02 commented Dec 4, 2020

We had a batch of RNAseq where the rRNA depletion kit failed. This shows the samples with the most/least rRNA (and a few in the middle). v2 does not detect this issue.

comparison.txt

@agraubert agraubert added the Legacy Difference For issues pertaining to changes between legacy RNA-SeQC and 2.0.0 label Dec 23, 2020
@suzifei
Copy link

suzifei commented Mar 4, 2021

Hi,
Most publicly available GTFs (Ensembl for example) do not have well-defined rRNA intervals in their GTFs. This is why the BWA method using a fasta of rRNA sequences is superior. Do you have a straightforward suggestion for how to obtain well-defined rRNA intervals for a variety of species to append to our chosen GTFs?
Thanks,
Suzi

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Legacy Difference For issues pertaining to changes between legacy RNA-SeQC and 2.0.0
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants