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.

# Filtering out variants with high no-call rates

mghMember Posts: 4

Hi,
I have run UnifiedGenotyper followed by application of hard filters as recommended in the GATK best practices on my targeted sequencing data. I've noticed, however, there are several variants with very high no-call rates (>90%) which still passed the variant filtration. I'm pasting below part of the vcf files for two such variants.

I've also noticed that most of high no-call rate variants have very low read depths. I read in other discussions that you don't recommend filtering variants by read depth, but I wonder if there is another filtering criteria you can recommend so that such variants wouldn't pass the filtering step (i.e. more stringent std_call_conf values?)?

I can surely filter out the variants based on their call rate before the downstream applications, but I'm trying to understand the sequencing quality metrics, and GATK's behavior here as to what quality of these variants makes them to get a pass in the filtration.

Thanks a lot,

Gulum

for these two variants below, genotypes for only 2 and 1 (out of 278) people, respectively, were called:

# CHROM POS ID REF ALT QUAL FILTER INFO FORMAT 10134 10215

1 11857410 rs7537955 A G 101.85 PASS AC=6;AF=1.00;AN=6;DB;DP=3;Dels=0.00;FS=0.000;HaplotypeScore=0.0000;MLEAC=6;MLEAF=1.00;MQ=45.96;MQ0=0;QD=33.95; GT:AD:DP:GQ:PL ./. ./.
4 156661872 . C A 53.39 PASS AC=2;AF=1.00;AN=2;DP=2;Dels=0.00;FS=0.000;HaplotypeScore=0.0000;MLEAC=2;MLEAF=1.00;MQ=60.00;MQ0=0;QD=26.70; GT:AD:DP:GQ:PL ./. ./.

Tagged: