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

Different MLST result when re-running SRST2 after adding in new alleles #73

Open
swlong opened this issue Nov 15, 2016 · 3 comments
Open

Comments

@swlong
Copy link
Contributor

swlong commented Nov 15, 2016

Howdy all,

So running into an odd issue. I am running a few K. pneumoniae samples against an MLST database using 0.2.0, and on first run, it generated the following best match:

image

It says the rpoB_135 allele hit has 1 SNP, and these are the coverage stats:

image

So I saved my new consensus fastas, and then added them back to my MLST database to allow for calling against these "new" alleles. When rerunning the same FASTQ file, I then got this result:

258 3 3 1 1 1 1 79

With these stats:

42.48 0.171428571429

Any ideas? The alleles for 258 should've been present in the earlier database, so not sure why I would get a 135* call on first run, with overall less depth of coverage (~22x) vs 42x on the repeat, with a clean hit against all ST258 alleles.

Best,
S. Wesley Long

@rrwick
Copy link
Collaborator

rrwick commented Nov 17, 2016

Hmmm, that's a interesting one. Our first hypothesis that is your reads are a mix of different genomes, as this has been the cause of weird SRST2 results in the past. So perhaps run some QC to see if you have a mixed sample?

It would be really informative if you could run SRST2 with --save_scores for your two databases (before and after the new allele was added). Then we could take a look at the .scores files. In particular, I'm curious how allele 1 scored in your first run and how allele 135 scored in your second run.

@swlong
Copy link
Contributor Author

swlong commented Nov 17, 2016

Mixed sample is most likely. These are all samples from clinical specimens, so not unusual to have a "community" of organisms.

Fairly busy at the moment but I will try to get the scores run on this particular example and let you know what they say.

@swlong swlong closed this as completed Nov 17, 2016
@swlong swlong reopened this Nov 17, 2016
@swlong
Copy link
Contributor Author

swlong commented Nov 17, 2016

(Accidental close, apologies)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants