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!

Get notifications!

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.
2. Try the latest version of tools.
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.

Did we ask for a bug report?

Then follow instructions in Article#1894.

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.

Jump to another community
Download the latest Picard release at
GATK version 4.beta.3 (i.e. the third beta release) is out. See the GATK4 beta page for download and details.

Non-deterministic UnifiedGenotyper and VariantRecalibrator


I did some tests with a "best practices"-like pipeline to check if results were deterministic and found that they are not.
Some posts already mention that UnifiedGenotyper is non-deterministic when using multi-threading as different seeds are used for downsampling. But I think I'm missing something if single-thread UnifiedGenotyper is deterministic, why would it chose exactly the same reads for downsampling? Wouldn't it always be non-deterministic when downsampling reads?
Anyway, the difference was only of 31 variants for an exome sample.

About the VariantRecalibrator I guess the filtering is non-deterministic, but I did not found any reference to this in the forum. The difference between runs is greater in this case. After filtering I had 301 variants only non-filtered in the first run; and 1684 variants only non-filtered in the second run; the non-filtered variants in both runs were 11328.

Thanks in advance!

Best Answer


Sign In or Register to comment.