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.
We will be out of the office for a Broad Institute event from Dec 10th to Dec 11th 2019. We will be back to monitor the GATK forum on Dec 12th 2019. In the meantime we encourage you to help out other community members with their queries.
Thank you for your patience!
GATK 3.2-2 N+1 HaplotypeCaller missing Alt alleles
I've been look at variant calling with the 3.2-2 version of the GATK HaplotypeCaller and it is failing to record high quality alternative alleles in the GVCF file.
In the attached IGV screenshot I'm looking at a in 3 individuals (from the top) grandsire, dam & child. As you can see they all clearly show a Heterozygous site GS 5 alt BQ26-29, Dam 7 Alt BQ27-31, Child 10 alt BQ26-33 however GATK has only called a variant for the Child and Dam. The GS though it has 5 alt & 9 ref is called Ref/Ref with an AD of 14,0 when it should be 9,5.
When I extract the site from the GVCF file I see this:
chr1 9590826 . T <NON_REF> . . END=9590826 GT:DP:GQ:MIN_DP:PL 0/0:14:0:14:0,0,142
For some reason the HC GVCF has failed to recognise the 5 alt alleles and instead reported 15 Ref, with a PL of 0,0,142 (so it knows something is wrong). If I look at the GVCF record for the dam & child they are correct:
chr1 9590826 rs380224633 T A,<NON_REF> 215.18 . BaseQRankSum=-0.996;ClippingRankSum=-1.630;DB;DP=18;MLEAC=1,0;MLEAF=0.500,0.00;MQ=60.00;MQ0=0;MQRankSum=-1.721;ReadPosRankSum=2.174 GT:AD:DP:GQ:PL:SB 0/1:11,7,0:18:99:235,0,428,268,449,717:5,6,5,2 chr1 9590826 rs380224633 T A,<NON_REF> 334.18 . BaseQRankSum=-0.033;ClippingRankSum=-0.429;DB;DP=23;MLEAC=1,0;MLEAF=0.500,0.00;MQ=60.00;MQ0=0;MQRankSum=-1.154;ReadPosRankSum=-0.692 GT:AD:DP:GQ:PL:SB 0/1:12,10,0:22:99:354,0,421,390,451,841:8,4,2,8
I've seen several dozen cases like this in the last 20mins. Is this a known bug or do you need data to replicate it?