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.

Strange QUAL values with UnifiedGenotyper

mrubiocmrubioc Member Posts: 3
edited September 2013 in Ask the GATK team

Hi,
I'm working with the UnifiedGenotyper walker and I have detected strange values for the QUAL field of some VCF entries in the output files.

Sometimes in the VCF output file, the QUAL value for different vcf entries it is repited, for example, the QUAL values 32729.73 or 2147483609.73 usually appear in the output and not only in my files, because when I have searched on the GATK forum, this value appears in other users posted vcf files related to other questions.

I have tested it with several GATK versions, and in the latests versions these QUAL numbers are extremely high and I have also detected that the value doesn't correspond with the relationship QUAL~QD*DP.

Another strange thing is that for other QUAL values in the VCF file, it is very common that decimal part begins with a seven. i.e : 32729.73

Have you detected this? Is some kind of bug?

I look forward to your response.

I copy some VCF entries with different GATK versions:

Last version (2.7-2):

chr13    32907535    .    C    CT    2147483609.73    .    AC=1;AF=0.500;AN=2;BaseQRankSum=-1.483;DP=1000;FS=0.000;MLEAC=1;MLEAF=0.500;MQ=37.88;MQ0=0;MQRankSum=13.620;QD=33.72;RPA=11,12;RU=T;ReadPosRankSum=-12.065;STR    GT:AD:DP:GQ:PL    0/1:1386,1037:2453:99:9301,0,13130
chr13    32907589    .    G    GT    2147483609.73    .    AC=1;AF=0.500;AN=2;BaseQRankSum=6.991;DP=999;FS=0.000;MLEAC=1;MLEAF=0.500;MQ=37.93;MQ0=0;MQRankSum=26.910;QD=28.67;RPA=7,8;RU=T;ReadPosRankSum=-2.595;STR    GT:AD:DP:GQ:PL    0/1:1306,1142:2469:99:14116,0,16944

V 2.6-5:

chr13    32907535    .    C    CT    2147483609.73    .    AC=1;AF=0.500;AN=2;BaseQRankSum=-2.106;DP=1000;FS=0.000;MLEAC=1;MLEAF=0.500;MQ=37.81;MQ0=0;MQRankSum=14.984;QD=29.49;RPA=11,12;RU=T;ReadPosRankSum=-9.803;STR    GT:AD:DP:GQ:PL    0/1:1261,1038:2453:99:7901,0,13152
chr13    32907589    .    G    GT    2147483609.73    .    AC=1;AF=0.500;AN=2;BaseQRankSum=6.976;DP=998;FS=0.000;MLEAC=1;MLEAF=0.500;MQ=37.74;MQ0=0;MQRankSum=25.865;QD=31.47;RPA=7,8;RU=T;ReadPosRankSum=-0.572;STR    GT:AD:DP:GQ:PL    0/1:1184,1142:2469:99:13365,0,16796

V 2.5-2:

chr13    32907535    .    C    CT    32729.73    .    AC=1;AF=0.500;AN=2;BaseQRankSum=0.023;DP=1000;FS=0.000;MLEAC=1;MLEAF=0.500;MQ=37.75;MQ0=0;MQRankSum=-3.054;QD=32.73;RPA=11,12;RU=T;ReadPosRankSum=3.137;STR    GT:AD:DP:GQ:PL    0/1:0,29:2453:99:7901,0,13152
chr13    32907589    .    G    GT    32729.73    .    AC=1;AF=0.500;AN=2;DP=999;FS=0.000;MLEAC=1;MLEAF=0.500;MQ=37.71;MQ0=0;QD=32.76;RPA=7,8;RU=T;STR    GT:AD:DP:GQ:PL    0/1:0,0:2469:99:13365,0,16796
Post edited by Geraldine_VdAuwera on

Best Answer

Answers

  • Geraldine_VdAuweraGeraldine_VdAuwera Cambridge, MAMember, Administrator, Broadie Posts: 11,388 admin

    Hi there,

    What you're seeing is related to limitations on the value we can represent in that field. So, not really a bug, but a sort of artifact from the format. You don't need to worry about it, just consider that those sites have very high QUALs.

    Geraldine Van der Auwera, PhD

  • mrubiocmrubioc Member Posts: 3

    Hi Geraldine,

    thank you for your answer.

    But I can't see exactly why the QUAL field has limitations on the value it can represent. If values are extremely high, an exponential format can be used, for example.

    In addition, if there is a sort of artifact in the representation, why doesn't it happen from some QUAL value onwards?, because in the entries of my previous example the QUAL should be ~ 33000 (QUAL~QD*DP), and in other tests I have seen values larger than this correctly calculated/represented.

    And also, there is another important issue, with these erroneous values in the QUAL field, the variants can't be correctly ranked by QUAL.

    Finally, have you found a reason for the tendency of QUAL's decimal part to begin with a 7?

    Thank you.

Sign In or Register to comment.