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.

Discrepencies in quality scores and read depths

I was given reduced.bam files, and asked to rerun GATK on our targeted sequencing project (both for learning purposes, and to run some additional downstream analyses), and I'm having difficulty replicating what the previous person did exactly. I traced the root of the problem to the UnifiedGenotyper step --when comparing the vcf files output, I see some (not too many, but a few) discordances, namely, values for QUAL are different (although mostly correlated), and values for AD, DP and PL under INFO are different as well. Genotype calls and genotype qualities, however, are mostly concordant, except for a very few indel/MNP sites. The new run also lists more number of variants that passes the quality filtering.

Comparing the old run (from log files) to my run, I can spot only a few differences, so I was wondering if you have any insights whether any of these, or which, could cause the observed discrepancies: First of all, the old analyses were done in December 2012, and I think GATK2.0 was used, whereas I use GATK2.7. Is it possible that new versions of GATK calculates the quality scores differently, particularly, for indels..? Second difference is, the person who ran it before had scattered the intervals into 40 counts (and gathered it after UnifiedGenotyper), whereas I ran it as one piece. Also he had -dcov 75 in his command line, whereas I omitted that.

Any insight is much appreciated!

Thanks a lot,


Best Answer


Sign In or Register to comment.