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.
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!

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

# VQSR, VQSLOD, and indels

Member Posts: 1

Hi Mark, Eric -

First, I wanted to thank you guys for providing advice with respect to running VQSR. I am already sold and a huge fan of the method :-).

I was wondering if either of you could comment on VQSLOD and sensitivity filter tranche?
To be more specific, if I set a filter threshold of 99% for sensitivity and VQSLOD < 0 I imagine that probably is not a good idea! However, a VQSLOD of 3 or 5 may be appropriate in the statistical sense, i.e. pretty confident that this is a real variant. Finally, I am thinking we should include VQSLOD in our statistical genetic association mapping methods. I wanted to get a sense from either of you what VQSLOD you would want to completely remove from analysis?

Best Wishes,

Manny.

Tagged:

• Dev Posts: 122 ✭✭✭

Hey Manny,

I'm glad that you are enjoying the VQSR. For most of our projects we are generally interested in operating in the regime where sensitivity is at or above 99% so we are happy to tolerate variants in which VQSLOD is near zero in order to get there. We use the VQSLOD simply as a way to rank-order the variants and then decide where to apply that cutoff. If you really want to be sure that your variants have a very low false positive rate then VQSLOD > 3 is a great place to start.

I would love to see somebody including the VQSLOD in their statistical methods. I think there is a lot of untapped potential there.

I hope that is helpful. Let me know if you have any other questions.

Cheers,