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.
We will be out of the office on November 11th and 13th 2019, due to the U.S. holiday(Veteran's day) and due to a team event(Nov 13th). We will return to monitoring the GATK forum on November 12th and 14th respectively. Thank you for your patience.

Picard CollectWgsMetrics for WES?


I want to get a coverage report for WES using Picard CollectWgsMetrics, since the DepthofCoverage function in GATK is relatively slow. But the coverage results differ a lot from the 2 programs.

* CollectWgsMetrics and DepthofCoverage wereprovided with the interval list file from the WES.
* ran with default settings.

CollectWgsMetrics reports mean coverage = 33.50, while DepthofCoverage reports 58.33. So I tried to find out why such big difference. I found that over 29.4% aligned bases were excluded in PCT_EXC_DUPE based on CollectWgsMetrics. However, only 8.9% of reads are filtered by DuplicateReadFilter in DepthofCoverage log file.

Is the lower coverage in CollectWgsMetrics due to the larger number of duplicated bases?

DoesCollectWgsMetrics and DepthofCoverage count duplicated reads differently?

Thanks a lot,


Sign In or Register to comment.