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.
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.
Distribution of RGQ scores
I work with non-human genomes and commonly need the confidence of the reference sites, so I was happy to see the inclusion of the RGQ score in the format field of GenotypeGVCFs. However, I am a little confused as to what this score means (how it is calculated). Out of curiosity I plotted the distribution of RGQ and GQ scores over ~1Mbp. A few things jumped out that I was hoping you could explain:
(1) There are two peaks of GQ and RGQ scores, one at 99 - which is obviously just the highest confidence score and another at exactly GQ/RGQ=45. You can see this in the GQ/RGQ distribution below. I've excluded the sites where RGQ/GQ = 0 or 99 (RGQ = blue, GQ=red) is there some reason why so many GT calls == 45?
(2) There are very few GQ = 0 calls and ~96% are GQ=99 - but in the RGQ ~42% == 0 and 54%=99. Is there any explanation why so many RGQ scores == 0? I fear that filtering on RGQ will bias the data against reference calls and include a disproportionate number of variant calls.