Lower than expected coverage for illumina paired end reads about rasusa

[mbhall88]

When you say you get 240x instead of 250x is that based on the rasusa logs or some other way of calculating this?

The way rasusa subsamples for paired reads is it gathers all of the read lengths for the first fastq file (R1), and randomly selects reads until the total length of those sampled reads is half of the required total read length for the given genome size and coverage. It then outputs those sampled reads and their mate in R2. So there is an implicit assumption here that the mate has the same read length. So if you're seeing 240x instead of 250x that suggests your R2 might have had more bases trimmed than R1...

[ilyavs]

Hi,
Thank you for your response. It is typical for R2 to have lower quality than R1 and therefore one could expect R2 reads to be shorter after quality trimming. Given your explanation of how rasusa works, I understand the reason for the difference in coverage.
I get 240x instead of 250x calculated by taking the total number of base pairs after subsampling with rasusa and dividing by the genome size provided to rasusa. If I remember correctly, this matched the rasusa logs but I don't have these at hand.
Thanks,
Ilya.

[ilyavs]

I would suggest summing the read length of R1 and R2 and randomly selecting read pairs until the total length of those sampled reads matches the required total read length for the given genome size and coverage.

[mbhall88]

Ok, that makes sense then.

I would suggest summing the read length of R1 and R2 and randomly selecting read pairs until the total length of those sampled reads matches the required total read length for the given genome size and coverage.

This is a more accurate solution to the than what I currently do for sure. I'll look at trying to change the implementation to do this.

[ilyavs]

Great. Thank you :)

[ilyavs]

Hi,
Any idea when this fix will be implemented and distributed?
Thanks,
Ilya.

[mbhall88]

Sorry @ilyavs , I am currently writing up my PhD thesis so I don't have a huge amount of spare time. However, it is still very much high on my list of things to do so hopefully I can get around to it soon.

[mbhall88]

Hi @ilyavs, would be able to do me a favour and test out b72405e and see if it resolves this? You can either build from the source in that commit, or if you are using a container you can use the following image

# for docker
quay.io/mbhall88/rasusa:b72405e
# for singularity
docker://quay.io/mbhall88/rasusa:b72405e

[mbhall88]

This should be sorted in version 0.4.0. Let me know if there are still problems