hichipper QC report

2017-12-29

hichipper, version 0.7.1.

Summary Tables

MyLa_Rep1 MyLa_Rep2
Total PETs 246037528 212923142
% Reads in Anchors 34.78 37.11
% HQ Unique Mapped 86.04 92.75
% Long Range Interaction 15.79 17.62
% in Loops 0.76 0.83

The first summary table notes how many PETs are in each sample and what fraction were mapped with high-quality. First, the “% Reads in Anchors” takes all unique, mappable pairs (whether they are valid, dangling, self-circle, etc. doesn’t matter) and determines what fraction have both overlapping with anchor loci. Note, this numer should give an indication of the ChIP quality, but it may be sensitive to how peaks are determined with padding, etc. While the “% HQ Unique Mapped” reads should be self explanatory, the “% Long Range Interaction” value represents the number of intrachromosomal reads longer than the minimum length (default 5Kb) specified by the user and is a good approximation for the efficacy of the in situ ligation. Finally, the “% in Loops” is the fraction of total reads that are in loops, defined by high-quality, mapped intrachromosomal, anchor-mapped, between min and max lengths (default 5Kb and 2Mb). If the proportion of loops reads is low but the proportion of long range interactions is high, this suggests that the ChIP efficiency is relatively low.


MyLa_Rep1 MyLa_Rep2
Intrachromasomal PETs 75382092 72211565
% Reads < 5Kb 36.40 35.76
% Reads in 5KB-2Mb 51.54 51.94
% Reads > 2Mb 12.06 12.30

The second summary table shows the total number of intrachromosomal pets and the distance that they span binned by the max and min user defined distances. Only reads in the middle are used when making loops but all are used for anchor calling. If the very long interactions are disproportionately abundant, the proximity ligation step may not have been effective. In contrast, if the short range interactions are disproportionately abundant, issues with the in situ ligation likely occurred in the experiment.


Loop Width Distribution Histogram

Above is a histogram of the loop widths greater than the minimum distance supplied in the parameters. Note that the loops smaller than the minimum distance have been filtered to make the histogram more interpretable (refer to the table above to see the proportion of very loops below the minimum distance, which are likely self-ligations).

Raw Read Stats

MyLa_Rep1 MyLa_Rep2
Total_PETs 246,037,528 212,923,142
Mapped_unique_quality 211,686,608 197,496,792
Mapped_unique_quality_valid 82,664,990 79,322,395
Valid_Intra 75,382,092 72,211,565
Valid_Intra_<5Kb 27,438,929 25,820,429
Valid_Intra_5Kb-2Mb 38,848,773 37,506,588
Valid_Intra_>2Mb 9,094,390 8,884,548
Valid_Intra_anchor_5Kb-2Mb 1,866,126 1,767,509
HQ_Reads_In_Anchors 85,560,354 79,012,638

Proportional Read Stats

MyLa_Rep1 MyLa_Rep2
Total_PETs 100.00 100.00
Mapped_unique_quality 86.04 92.75
Mapped_unique_quality_valid 33.60 37.25
Valid_Intra 30.64 33.91
Valid_Intra_<5Kb 11.15 12.13
Valid_Intra_5Kb-2Mb 15.79 17.62
Valid_Intra_>2Mb 3.70 4.17
Valid_Intra_anchor_5Kb-2Mb 0.76 0.83
Long_Range_Interactions 15.79 17.62

Number of Anchor Peaks

sample npeaks
MyLa_Rep1 84598
MyLa_Rep2 84598

The number of anchor peaks used in each sample. In lowly sequenced samples, these numbers may be low and be responsible for the lack of PETs mapping into loops.