Kun:LabNotes/MONOD/2014-8-12: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
PC-T-1_1 44,275,077/42,697,725 53,030,360 83.4% | PC-T-1_1 44,275,077/42,697,725 53,030,360 83.4% | ||
*I believe the on-target rate is an indicator of the degree of DNA fragmentation. If a fraction of DNA are fragmented, they will be included in the sequencing libraries even without MspI digestion. The on-target rate would be lower in such cases. So plasma DNA always have lower on-target rates. | *I believe the on-target rate is an indicator of the degree of DNA fragmentation. If a fraction of DNA are fragmented, they will be included in the sequencing libraries even without MspI digestion. The on-target rate would be lower in such cases. So plasma DNA always have lower on-target rates. | ||
*There isn't a big difference between the two sets of target regions identified at different level of stringency. | *There isn't a big difference between the two sets of target regions identified at different level of stringency. Therefore, I checked the on-target rates for all samples using the larger target set. | ||
{| {{table}} | |||
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Samples''' | |||
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''All sites RD''' | |||
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''On-target RD''' | |||
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''On-target Rate''' | |||
|- | |||
| 6-P-10||15,965,319||20,663,932||77.3% | |||
|- | |||
| 6-P-1||10,145,982||13,357,081||76.0% | |||
|- | |||
| 6-P-2||6,896,186||9,062,234||76.1% | |||
|- | |||
| 6-P-3||19,268,289||21,802,969||88.4% | |||
|- | |||
| 6-P-4||5,974,773||7,495,311||79.7% | |||
|- | |||
| 6-P-5||12,590,365||16,494,290||76.3% | |||
|- | |||
| 6-P-6||7,512,063||12,272,372||61.2% | |||
|- | |||
| 6-P-7||11,161,941||15,365,391||72.6% | |||
|- | |||
| 6-P-8||10,857,495||14,764,214||73.5% | |||
|- | |||
| 6-P-9||9,301,655||11,828,425||78.6% | |||
|- | |||
| 6-T-1_1||42,122,819||51,404,477||81.9% | |||
|- | |||
| 6-T-1_2||55,332,112||68,680,670||80.6% | |||
|- | |||
| 6-T-2_1||39,727,871||47,770,689||83.2% | |||
|- | |||
| 6-T-2_2||43,299,367||53,183,818||81.4% | |||
|- | |||
| 6-T-3_1||36,204,067||45,527,237||79.5% | |||
|- | |||
| 6-T-3_2||37,657,579||46,334,499||81.3% | |||
|- | |||
| 6-T-4_1||48,592,836||59,200,663||82.1% | |||
|- | |||
| 6-T-4_2||44,582,324||52,297,088||85.2% | |||
|- | |||
| 6-T-5_1||42,943,331||51,084,769||84.1% | |||
|- | |||
| 6-T-5_2||51,597,080||62,764,249||82.2% | |||
|- | |||
| 7-P-10||14,120,252||19,830,640||71.2% | |||
|- | |||
| 7-P-1||18,418,449||22,370,674||82.3% | |||
|- | |||
| 7-P-2||3,066,869||4,201,304||73.0% | |||
|- | |||
| 7-P-3||8,092,483||11,658,106||69.4% | |||
|- | |||
| 7-P-4||16,586,445||20,741,132||80.0% | |||
|- | |||
| 7-P-5||8,001,688||10,231,049||78.2% | |||
|- | |||
| 7-P-6||7,444,769||9,792,239||76.0% | |||
|- | |||
| 7-P-7||10,815,500||13,957,997||77.5% | |||
|- | |||
| 7-P-8||10,431,532||14,322,889||72.8% | |||
|- | |||
| 7-P-9||9,590,120||13,362,917||71.8% | |||
|- | |||
| | |||
|} |
Revision as of 00:48, 14 August 2014
RRBS data analysis (continued)
1. Compile a list of RRBS targets
- Take all the RRBS data that we generated from primary tumor samples, concatenate all the methylFreq files, and generate a single BED file.
cat 6-T-1_1.methylFreq 6-T-1_2.methylFreq 6-T-2_1.methylFreq 6-T-2_2.methylFreq 6-T-3_1.methylFreq 6-T-3_2.methylFreq 6-T-4_1.methylFreq 6-T-4_2.methylFreq 6-T-5_1.methylFreq 6-T-5_2.methylFreq 7-T-1_1.methylFreq 7-T-1_2.methylFreq 7-T-2_1.methylFreq 7-T-2_2.methylFreq 7-T-3_1.methylFreq 7-T-3_2.methylFreq 7-T-4_1.methylFreq 7-T-4_2.methylFreq 7-T-5_1.methylFreq 7-T-5_2.methylFreq CTT-FFPE-100ng_1.methylFreq CTT-FFPE-100ng_2.methylFreq CTT-FFPE-5ng_1.methylFreq CTT-FFPE-5ng_2.methylFreq CTT-frozen-100ng_1.methylFreq CTT-frozen-100ng_2.methylFreq CTT-frozen-5ng_1.methylFreq CTT-frozen-5ng_2.methylFreq PC-T-1_1.methylFreq PC-T-1_2.methylFreq PC-T-2_1.methylFreq PC-T-2_2.methylFreq PC-T-4_1.methylFreq PC-T-4_2.methylFreq PC-T-6_1.methylFreq PC-T-6_2.methylFreq PC-T-7_1.methylFreq PC-T-7_2.methylFreq | /home/dinh/scripts/methylFreq2BED.pl 20 > /home/kunzhang/CpgMIP/Data/MONOD/MONOD_primary_tumor_RRBS_combined.BED.txt
cat MONOD_primary_tumor_RRBS_combined.BED.txt | sort -k1,1 -k2,2n > MONOD_primary_tumor_RRBS_combined.sorted.BED.txt
- Group the sites covered into clusters:
./bed2Clusters.pl MONOD_primary_tumor_RRBS_combined.sorted.BED.txt > MONOD_primary_tumor_RRBS_targets.BED.txt
- A total of 198,439 regions in the autosomes, with a total size of 48.8Mb.
- I also compiled a more stringent list of target by requiring a minimal read depth of 100 for the CpG sites. This list has 119,966 autosomal regions, with a total size of 25.8Mb.
awk ' $5>100 { print $1"\t"$2"\t"$3"\t"$4"\t"$5"\t"$6"\t"$7"\t"$8"\t"$9 }' MONOD_primary_tumor_RRBS_combined.sorted.BED.txt > MONOD_primary_tumor_RRBS_combined_RD100.sorted.BED.txt ./bed2Clusters.pl MONOD_primary_tumor_RRBS_combined_RD100.sorted.BED.txt > MONOD_primary_tumor_RRBS_targets_RD100.BED.txt
2. Check the total read depth for CpG sites within the RRBS targets
cat 6-P-10.methylFreq | /home/dinh/scripts/methylFreq2BED.pl 1 | /home/kunzhang/softwares/bedtools-2.17.0/bin/bedtools intersect -wa -a - -b /home/kunzhang/CpgMIP/Data/MONOD/MONOD_primary_tumor_RRBS_targets.BED.txt | /home/kunzhang/CpgMIP/Data/MONOD/bed_total_RD.pl cat 6-P-10.methylFreq | /home/dinh/scripts/methylFreq2BED.pl 1 | /home/kunzhang/CpgMIP/Data/MONOD/bed_total_RD.pl On-target read depth Total CpG read depth % on-target 6-P-10 15,965,319/14,617,979 20,663,932 77.3% 6-P-1 10,145,982/9,347,247 13,357,081 76.0% 6-T-1_1 42,122,819/40,519,748 51,404,477 81.9% 6-T-2_1 39,727,871/38,177,035 47,770,689 83.2% CTT-frozen-100ng_1 50,274,814/48,129,684 55,387,277 90.8% CTT-frozen-5ng_1 14,303,236/13,695,699 15,310,475 93.4% CTT-FFPE-100ng_1 41,695,594/43,527,498 47,409,114 91.8% PC-P-1 6,363,821/5,972,702 7,727,128 82.3% PC-P-10 7,607,573/7,274,238 9,433,521 80.6% PC-T-1_1 44,275,077/42,697,725 53,030,360 83.4%
- I believe the on-target rate is an indicator of the degree of DNA fragmentation. If a fraction of DNA are fragmented, they will be included in the sequencing libraries even without MspI digestion. The on-target rate would be lower in such cases. So plasma DNA always have lower on-target rates.
- There isn't a big difference between the two sets of target regions identified at different level of stringency. Therefore, I checked the on-target rates for all samples using the larger target set.
Samples | All sites RD | On-target RD | On-target Rate |
6-P-10 | 15,965,319 | 20,663,932 | 77.3% |
6-P-1 | 10,145,982 | 13,357,081 | 76.0% |
6-P-2 | 6,896,186 | 9,062,234 | 76.1% |
6-P-3 | 19,268,289 | 21,802,969 | 88.4% |
6-P-4 | 5,974,773 | 7,495,311 | 79.7% |
6-P-5 | 12,590,365 | 16,494,290 | 76.3% |
6-P-6 | 7,512,063 | 12,272,372 | 61.2% |
6-P-7 | 11,161,941 | 15,365,391 | 72.6% |
6-P-8 | 10,857,495 | 14,764,214 | 73.5% |
6-P-9 | 9,301,655 | 11,828,425 | 78.6% |
6-T-1_1 | 42,122,819 | 51,404,477 | 81.9% |
6-T-1_2 | 55,332,112 | 68,680,670 | 80.6% |
6-T-2_1 | 39,727,871 | 47,770,689 | 83.2% |
6-T-2_2 | 43,299,367 | 53,183,818 | 81.4% |
6-T-3_1 | 36,204,067 | 45,527,237 | 79.5% |
6-T-3_2 | 37,657,579 | 46,334,499 | 81.3% |
6-T-4_1 | 48,592,836 | 59,200,663 | 82.1% |
6-T-4_2 | 44,582,324 | 52,297,088 | 85.2% |
6-T-5_1 | 42,943,331 | 51,084,769 | 84.1% |
6-T-5_2 | 51,597,080 | 62,764,249 | 82.2% |
7-P-10 | 14,120,252 | 19,830,640 | 71.2% |
7-P-1 | 18,418,449 | 22,370,674 | 82.3% |
7-P-2 | 3,066,869 | 4,201,304 | 73.0% |
7-P-3 | 8,092,483 | 11,658,106 | 69.4% |
7-P-4 | 16,586,445 | 20,741,132 | 80.0% |
7-P-5 | 8,001,688 | 10,231,049 | 78.2% |
7-P-6 | 7,444,769 | 9,792,239 | 76.0% |
7-P-7 | 10,815,500 | 13,957,997 | 77.5% |
7-P-8 | 10,431,532 | 14,322,889 | 72.8% |
7-P-9 | 9,590,120 | 13,362,917 | 71.8% |