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!

You can opt in to receive email notifications, for example when your questions get answered or when there are new announcements, by following the instructions given here.

☞ Did you remember to?

1. Search using the upper-right search box, e.g. using the error message.
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.

☞ Formatting tip!

Wrap blocks of code, error messages and BAM/VCF snippets--especially content with hashes (#)--with lines with three backticks ( ` ) each to make a code block as demonstrated here.

GATK 3.7 is here! Be sure to read the Version Highlights and optionally the full Release Notes.

MGHMember Posts: 20
edited January 2013

I just wrote a walker to look for particular types of low frequency mutations, and I wanted to verify that the methods were working. I was hoping to simulate some illumina data with the variants and then run the methods against this data.

However, I don't know what a realistic error model is for common Illumina data and so am not sure how realistic my simulations are (Proportion of gaps, A->C versus A->G, etc.). Does the GATK include a read simulator? I saw one walker in the documentation but it seemed to rely on inputting settings that I didn't know about it and looked a bit out of date.

Any help appreciated.

edited January 2013

We don't normally work with simulated data, so we don't have any up-to-date tools to do this, sorry. Perhaps someone in the community can suggest a good package that does this?

EDIT: I stand corrected. See Mark's remark for pointers, although this only applies to folks within Broad. Suggestions from the community are still welcome to help external folks!

Geraldine Van der Auwera, PhD

• MGHMember Posts: 20

Found a program that accounts for the error model (if in a somewhat unspecified way)...
http://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/software/biostatistics/art/