The current GATK version is 3.7-0
Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Did you remember to?


1. Search using the upper-right search box, e.g. using the error message.
2. Try the latest version of tools.
3. Include tool and Java versions.
4. Tell us whether you are following GATK Best Practices.
5. Include relevant details, e.g. platform, DNA- or RNA-Seq, WES (+capture kit) or WGS (PCR-free or PCR+), paired- or single-end, read length, expected average coverage, somatic data, etc.
6. For tool errors, include the error stacktrace as well as the exact command.
7. For format issues, include the result of running ValidateSamFile for BAMs or ValidateVariants for VCFs.
8. For weird results, include an illustrative example, e.g. attach IGV screenshots according to Article#5484.
9. For a seeming variant that is uncalled, include results of following Article#1235.

Did we ask for a bug report?


Then follow instructions in Article#1894.

Formatting tip!


Surround blocks of code, error messages and BAM/VCF snippets--especially content with hashes (#)--with lines with three backticks ( ``` ) each to make a code block.
Powered by Vanilla. Made with Bootstrap.
Picard 2.9.0 is now available. Download and read release notes here.
GATK 3.7 is here! Be sure to read the Version Highlights and optionally the full Release Notes.

"Raw" VCF FILTER field, previous GATK builds vs Current

bwubbbwubb Member Posts: 53
edited September 2012 in Ask the GATK team

Hello,
Did the UnifiedGenotyper of previous builds use to place "PASS" in the filter fields of vcf files? I have re-ran some data using current best practices, including the HaplotypeCaller. My first snps.indels.raw.vcf file has all . in the FILTER field, which I remember was not a good thing. Im compared the vcf produced at this step with my previous UnifiedGenotyper counterpart and the FILTER field was populated with "PASS". I am bit concerned that is there were no PASS then no LowQual filter applied by the caller either.

Besides using HaplotypeCaller, the only other argument I had changed was returning the -stand_emit_conf to the default. Is this perhaps the root of my concern? Does having both stand_call_conf and stand_emit_conf at defaults ie. equal not apply any FILTER?

Thank you.

Best Answer

  • ebanksebanks Broad InstituteMember, Broadie, Dev Posts: 692 admin
    Accepted Answer

    The genotyper doesn't apply any filters other than LowQual - which is discussed in the documentation.

    Eric Banks, PhD -- Director, Data Sciences and Data Engineering, Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT

Answers

  • ebanksebanks Broad InstituteMember, Broadie, Dev Posts: 692 admin

    The behavior should not have changed. "." in the filter field is not bad (it means that no filtering was applied). Please see the VCF spec for more information.

    Eric Banks, PhD -- Director, Data Sciences and Data Engineering, Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT

  • bwubbbwubb Member Posts: 53
    edited September 2012

    Understood. I guess Im just curious how I applied a filter previously when running UnifiedGenotyper for the first time. I apologize if this is a bit frivolous, but its driving me a bit crazy.

    My current vcf header has ##FILTER=<ID=LowQual,Description="Low quality">, but I do not see any LowQual or PASS, so I am inclined to believe this was not applied (as you suggested) and I would like to change that, especially if it can be applied automatically during initial variant calling (before I apply other hard filters). I will have to change my -stand_emit_conf again. Im guessing that is applied to the QUAL? Thank you.

  • ebanksebanks Broad InstituteMember, Broadie, Dev Posts: 692 admin
    Accepted Answer

    The genotyper doesn't apply any filters other than LowQual - which is discussed in the documentation.

    Eric Banks, PhD -- Director, Data Sciences and Data Engineering, Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT

Sign In or Register to comment.