Heads up:
We’re moving the GATK website, docs and forum to a new platform. Read the full story and breakdown of key changes on this blog.
Notice:
If you happen to see a question you know the answer to, please do chime in and help your fellow community members. We encourage our fourm members to be more involved, jump in and help out your fellow researchers with their questions. GATK forum is a community forum and helping each other with using GATK tools and research is the cornerstone of our success as a genomics research community.We appreciate your help!

Test-drive the GATK tools and Best Practices pipelines on Terra


Check out this blog post to learn how you can get started with GATK and try out the pipelines in preconfigured workspaces (with a user-friendly interface!) without having to install anything.

BaseRecalibrator: end of cycle bases getting high qualities

kmsquirekmsquire Member
edited September 2012 in Ask the GATK team

I've just run the BaseRecalibrator on some whole genome sequences, and while scanning through the recalibration file, I noticed that some of the bases at the beginning and ends of reads were getting very high recalibration values:

SxaQSEQsXAP010_lane_1             6  -99             Cycle          M                    7.5248        416048     73563
SxaQSEQsXAP010_lane_1             6  99              Cycle          M                    6.7402        271864     57587
SxaQSEQsXAP010_lane_1             6  -100            Cycle          M                   30.1585        519622       500
SxaQSEQsXAP010_lane_1             6  100             Cycle          M                   30.7455        408415       343
SxaQSEQsXAP010_lane_1             7  1               Cycle          M                   37.0476         55736        10
SxaQSEQsXAP010_lane_1             7  2               Cycle          M                    9.6561         55347      5990
...
SxaQSEQsXAP010_lane_1             7  -99             Cycle          M                    9.3230      14040721   1640938
SxaQSEQsXAP010_lane_1             7  99              Cycle          M                    9.0272      10199039   1275971
SxaQSEQsXAP010_lane_1             7  -100            Cycle          M                   33.1557      23210317     11222
SxaQSEQsXAP010_lane_1             7  100             Cycle          M                   33.9099      21072616      8564
SxaQSEQsXAP010_lane_1             8  -6              Cycle          M                    7.2585         42164      7926
...
SxaQSEQsXAP010_lane_1            21  -98             Cycle          M                   22.7383        839160      4466
SxaQSEQsXAP010_lane_1            21  98              Cycle          M                   22.5192        716787      4012
SxaQSEQsXAP010_lane_1            21  -99             Cycle          M                   39.9141        872572        88
SxaQSEQsXAP010_lane_1            21  99              Cycle          M                   40.9464        696355        55
SxaQSEQsXAP010_lane_1            21  -100            Cycle          M                   38.9586        999226       126
SxaQSEQsXAP010_lane_1            21  100             Cycle          M                   39.2492        799184        94
SxaQSEQsXAP010_lane_1            22  -1              Cycle          M                   37.2879         69618        12
SxaQSEQsXAP010_lane_1            22  1               Cycle          M                   36.5709        108966        23
SxaQSEQsXAP010_lane_1            22  -2              Cycle          M                   37.7221         35509         5
SxaQSEQsXAP010_lane_1            22  2               Cycle          M                   37.9585         99992        15
SxaQSEQsXAP010_lane_1            22  -3              Cycle          M                   21.2202         62377       470
SxaQSEQsXAP010_lane_1            22  3               Cycle          M                   23.3286        118578       550

A possible explanation is that the aligner (novoalign) is clipping any bases which mismatch, and so there are very few mismatches at the ends and beginnings of reads. That would mean that there are actually very few errors at the beginning and ends of reads, and empirically, the measured quality is high.

However, even if this is correct, I'm wondering if I should trust the recalibration: A base which was originally marked with a quality of 6 or 7 suddenly has the possibility of getting a big boost (modulo any other covariates).

Do you have any thoughts, suggestions, or other possible explanations?

Thanks,

Kevin

Comments

Sign In or Register to comment.