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.

# More stringent filters in GATK

Member Posts: 1

Hi all,

I am comparing the variant calls from samtools and GATK. For samtools, I have been using quality score cut-offs 100 for SNP and 1000 for INDEL (quite stringent) and as a result, many variants are excluded after filtering.
In case of GATK, I have been using our default setting (99% sensitivity for SNPs and 95% sensitivity for INDEL) and included only the variants with FILTER field "PASS". I was wondering if there is any more stringent filters that I can apply and that could be equivalent to samtools QS thresholds since it does not look like this is a fair comparison.
Any of your suggestions will be appreciated.

Tagged: