The current GATK version is 3.8-0
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.

#### ☞ Got a problem?

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 version 4.beta.3 (i.e. the third beta release) is out. See the GATK4 beta page for download and details.

# Rare HLA Alleles and the HLACaller -minFreq option

Member
edited January 2013

Hi All,

I'm aware HLACaller is no longer technically supported, but I have a question related to some of the issues pertaining to the HLACaller algorithm on whole genome sequencing data. As is noted in the readme, the developers suggest using a -minFreq option to reduce rare HLA haplotypes from being spuriously called.

While that is entirely sensible, I was hoping someone could lend me some insight, suggestions, or help point me to some references that would elucidate which rare HLA alleles tend to show up frequently as false positives etc.? The reason I ask is that I'm working on a large project with cohorts of african ancestry, so I am apprehensive to entirely exclude "rare" alleles (which are likely rare European but not necessarily African alleles). I am currently planning on calling the alleles with the minFreq option in a first round, then scanning for individuals with potential calling errors and redoing them as a batch without the option in place.

Thanks,
Mark

Post edited by Geraldine_VdAuwera on
Tagged: