, 2011 at 2:30 PM, vasu punj wrote:
>
>> Though Tophat calls in Bowtie but they are different mapping tools.
Details
>> can be found in mannual of Tophat. For RNA-seq one may be stick with
Tophat.
>>
>> Vasu
>>
>> --- On *Wed, 4/27/11, Austin Paul * wrote:
- On *Wed, 4/27/11, Austin Paul * wrote:
>
>
> From: Austin Paul
> Subject: [galaxy-user] mapping with tophat vs. bwa
> To: galaxy-user@lists.bx.psu.edu
> Date: Wednesday, April 27, 2011, 4:20 PM
>
>
> Hello,
>
> I am getting what seems to me to be strange results u
Though Tophat calls in Bowtie but they are different mapping tools. Details can
be found in mannual of Tophat. For RNA-seq one may be stick with Tophat.
Vasu
--- On Wed, 4/27/11, Austin Paul wrote:
From: Austin Paul
Subject: [galaxy-user] mapping with tophat vs. bwa
To: galaxy-user
Hello,
I am getting what seems to me to be strange results using two different
mapping tools in Galaxy. I am mapping illumina RNA-seq data and with
tophat, while setting # alignments to 1, I get around 15-20% reads mapping.
And when I use bwa, I am getting around 75% reads mapping. My reference
4 matches
Mail list logo
