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.

# Different variant calls using the intervals options

MontrealMember

Hi,

Using the UnifiedGenotyper, I am having different results when using the --intervals option. Particularly at the edge of a region (at 20bps), some samples that had borderline calls change their genotype when filtering by the interval. I can see that the read counts in the AD Format field stays the same but the PL changes, resulting in a change of genotype call. I was wondering if the intervals options removes reads that spans the region ? what can result in having differnt PL values ?

Without intervals option
miSeq003.merge.sort.UnifiedGenotyper.vcf:DNAJC13.1K_flanks.60npl 43638 . A G 7028.01 . AC=45;AF=0.079;AN=572;BaseQRankSum=-257.764;DP=295778;Dels=0.00;FS=3200.000;HaplotypeScore=278.6356;InbreedingCoeff=-0.0850;MLEAC=43;MLEAF=0.075;MQ=58.16;MQ0=0;MQRankSum=-274.890;QD=0.17;ReadPosRankSum=-276.375 GT:AD:ADS:DP:GQ:PL 0/1:679,92:340,339,91,1:734:17:17,0,14068 ......

With intervals
miSeq003.merge.sort.UnifiedGenotyper.intervals.vcf:DNAJC13.1K_flanks.60npl 43638 . A G 6459.50 . AC=40;AF=0.070;AN=572;BaseQRankSum=-257.671;DP=295778;Dels=0.00;FS=3200.000;HaplotypeScore=278.6356;InbreedingCoeff=-0.0754;MLEAC=39;MLEAF=0.068;MQ=58.16;MQ0=0;MQRankSum=-274.744;QD=0.18;ReadPosRankSum=-276.325 GT:AD:ADS:DP:GQ:PL 0/0:679,92:340,339,91,1:734:2:0,2,14073 ......

Tagged:

• MontrealMember

Thanks Geraldine. Here is my command line:

java -Xmx24g -jar /RQexec/dionnela/soft/packages/GATK/dist/GenomeAnalysisTK.jar -T UnifiedGenotyper --input_file ${PROJECT}.merge.sort.bam -R ../DNAJC13.1K_flanks.60npl.fasta -nt 12 -o$VCF --metrics_file \${PROJECT}.merge.sort.UnifiedGenotyper.metrics --genotype_likelihoods_model BOTH --downsample_to_coverage 10000`

As you can see, I use --downsample_to_coverage 10000 and coverage for the loci is below that threshold. Is there another parameter/variable that can generate downsampling effect ?

• MontrealMember

Okay, got it. Thanks for the help