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.

# VQSR and Snpcall strategies for readgroups with different coverage distributions

Member Posts: 14

Hi - I have a question on how best to do VQSR on my samples. One of the readgroups for my individuals are from genomic DNA and have very even coverage (around 10x) while the remaining 4-5 readgroups in the individuals are from Whole Genome Amplified (WGA) DNA. The WGA readgruops have very uneven coverage ranging from 0 to over a 1000 with a mean of around 30x (see attached image, blue is wga and turquoise is genomic, y-axis is depth and x-axis is sliding windows along a chromosome). So I have WGA and genomic libs for each individual and their coverage distributions are very different.

We tested different SNP calling (Unified Genotyper) and VSQR strategies and at the moment we think a strategy where we call and vqsr the genomic and wga libs separately and then combine them in the end works best. However I am interested on what the GATK team would have done in such a case. The reason we are doing it separately is that we think the vqsr on the combined libs would not be wise since there is such difference in the depth (and strand bias) between the WGA and genomic readgroups. If there was a way in the VQSR step to incorporate read group difference and include it in the algortihm it could maybe solve such a problem - but as far as I can see there is no such thing (we used the ReadGroupblacklist option when calling the RGs separately) - but for VQSR there is not a "include read group effects" kind of option. Or does it intrinsically include read group information in the machine learning step? By the way - we did the BQSR so the qualities would have been adjusted according to readgroup effects. But still there does seem to be a noticeable difference between the VQSR results we get from WGA vs genomic read groups (for instance WGA readgroups have consistently lower Hz than genomic readgroups calls - which we think is due to strand bias). From the VQSR plots it is clear that many SNPs are excluded in the WGA RGs due to strand bias and DP - however the bias is still visible after VQSR.

Sorry for the elaborate explanation - however - my question is how the GATK team would have handled SNPcalling and VQSR if the RG depth vary that much as in the attached image case.

Tagged: