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.

# Problem with DP following CombineVariants

Member Posts: 41

Hi team,

I've been having some issues with DP following CombineVariants:

I have two vcf files called by different callers - one by GATK UnifiedGenotyper and the other by samtools mpileup.

When I merge the files using CombineVariants, I notice that the DP per each variant is actually equal to the sum of DP of each of the vcf files.
For example: If for a shared variant in both vcf files the DP=8, then the DP in the union file will be DP=16. Neverhteless, if a given variant is not shared by both files, then the DP in the union file will be equal to the input file.

Is there a way resolve this issue?

Thanks!

Best,

Sagi

Tagged:

Hi Sagi,

If I understand correctly what is your issue, I believe this is actually the desired behavior. Since the program doesn't know these are calls made on the exact same data, it treats them as showing additional evidence for site calls. Is this an issue for your analysis?

Geraldine Van der Auwera, PhD

• Member Posts: 41

Hi Geraldine,

Thank you for your swift reply. Regarding your question - yes, this is an issue for me. I just want the initial DPs.

Any ideas?

Thanks!

Sagi

Hmm. Off the top of my head (no guarantees) I guess you could use the UNIQUIFY genotype merge option so that the separate data get treated as coming from different samples, and use the genotype field DP in your analysis...?

Geraldine Van der Auwera, PhD

• Member Posts: 41

OK I'll give it a shot. I'll let you know how it goes.

Thanks Geraldine! Always there when you're needed

I really appreciate it.

Best,

Sagi

Happy to help -- I hope it works!

Geraldine Van der Auwera, PhD

• Member Posts: 41

Hi Geraldine,

I tried out the UNIQUIFY flag, but sadly it didn't work. Any other ideas maybe?

Thanks!

Sagi

Just to check, what command line did you use?

Geraldine Van der Auwera, PhD

• Member Posts: 41

java -Xmx10g -jar GenomeAnalysisTK.jar \
-R ref.fasta \
-T CombineVariants \
--variant:GATK input1.GATK.vcf \
--variant:samtools input2.samtools.vcf \
-o output.vcf \
-genotypeMergeOptions UNIQUIFY
--filteredrecordsmergetype KEEP_UNCONDITIONAL