The platform will undergo maintenance on Sep 14 at about 7:45 AM EST and will be unavailable for approximately 2 hours.
2022
DOI: 10.1186/s12864-022-08691-6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Manipulating base quality scores enables variant calling from bisulfite sequencing alignments using conventional bayesian approaches

Abstract: Background Calling germline SNP variants from bisulfite-converted sequencing data poses a challenge for conventional software, which have no inherent capability to dissociate true polymorphisms from artificial mutations induced by the chemical treatment. Nevertheless, SNP data is desirable both for genotyping and to understand the DNA methylome in the context of the genetic background. The confounding effect of bisulfite conversion however can be conceptually resolved by observing differences i… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
3

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Therefore, this is an important source of error. As part of the epiGBS2 pipeline, this should be dealt with by the double-masking method ( Nunn et al 2022 ). This preprocessing step converts nucleotides in bisulfite context to the corresponding nucleotide in the reference genome, and nucleotides which may have arisen as a result of the bisulfite treatment are given a base quality score of 0.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Therefore, this is an important source of error. As part of the epiGBS2 pipeline, this should be dealt with by the double-masking method ( Nunn et al 2022 ). This preprocessing step converts nucleotides in bisulfite context to the corresponding nucleotide in the reference genome, and nucleotides which may have arisen as a result of the bisulfite treatment are given a base quality score of 0.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In our study, methylation calling was performed separately for the three sequence contexts (CG, CHG and CHH), following the methods described in Sammarco et al (25). Specifically, the EpiDiverse WGBS pipeline (https://github.com/EpiDiverse/wgbs) was used for quality control, adaptor trimming, bisulfite reads mapping and methylation calling (53). We used the most recent version of the F. vesca genome (v4.0.a2) in the mapping step (54).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For the methylome analyses we used the EpiDiverse toolkit (79), specifically designed for large WGBS datasets. We used the WGBS pipeline (https://github.com/EpiDiverse/wgbs) for read mapping and methylation calling, retained only uniquely-mapping reads longer than 30 bp, and obtained individual-sample bedGraph files for each sequence context.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We used the WGBS pipeline (https://github.com/EpiDiverse/wgbs) for read mapping and methylation calling, retained only uniquely-mapping reads longer than 30 bp, and obtained individual-sample bedGraph files for each sequence context. We then called DMRs using the DMR pipeline (79), with a minimum coverage of 4x. We compared the 20 samples with the most and the least M. periscae and Eriysiphales loads, resulting in two sets of DMRs for each sequence context.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%