Notice:
If you happen to see a question you know the answer to, please do chime in and help your fellow community members. We appreciate your help!
If you happen to see a question you know the answer to, please do chime in and help your fellow community members. 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.
DepthOfCoverage memory usage
igor
New YorkMember ✭✭
Is there a way to manage DepthOfCoverage memory usage? I am having problems when I give it a large intervals file. I can successfully run other tools like RealignerTargetCreator, IndelRealigner, and BaseRecalibrator, which seem like they would be more memory-intensive. I can also run DepthOfCoverage with --omitIntervalStatistics --omitLocusTable --omitDepthOutputAtEachBase. However, running it with just --omitDepthOutputAtEachBase gives me a memory error:
##### ERROR MESSAGE: There was a failure because you did not provide enough memory to run this program. See the -Xmx JVM argument to adjust the maximum heap size provided to Java
Is there any way to optimize that?
Tagged:
Answers
You can give GATK 4GB of memory like this:
I already assign certain amounts of memory for all of the tools, which is much larger than the BAM sizes. I can do that. My question is why DepthOfCoverage is only one that has any problems and only with certain parameters.
@igor
Hi,
I suspect you have some regions of very high coverage. DepthOfCoverage performs badly on those regions because it does not apply any downsampling, but other tools do not perform badly on those regions because they do apply downsampling.
-Sheila
I explicitly turn off downsampling on all tools. Also, DepthOfCoverage works, but only with certain parameters. That is the troubling part for me.
So what you're really saying is that asking DoC to calculate Interval Statistics and/or Locus Tables is taking too much memory? This seems reasonable to me. The help for --omitLocusTable says that you're deciding whether to calculate "per-sample per-depth counts of loci". You've not described your data at all, but it's not hard to imagine that computing a depth histogram for every sample simultaneously might require some memory.
I am only using one sample at a time.