Notice:
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.

VariantAnnotator and Mutect2

BogdanBogdan ✭✭Palo Alto, CAMember ✭✭

Dear Sheila, and Geraldine,

continuing our previous conversation about the fields in the VCF file produced by MUTECT2, please could you advise on why I see the following DIFFERENCES :

-- shall I run MUTECT2 with the options -A for FS, MQ, SOR, I am getting the following numerical values for a chr position :

FS=2.433; MQ=45.70; MQRankSum=-3.331 ; ReadPosRankSum=-0.654; SOR=1.489

-- shall I run MUTECT2 with NO -A options, but using VariantAnnotator on the VCF file in order to add FS, MQ, and SOR, the numerical values are :

FS=0.000; MQ=33.87; SOR=2.636;

the question would be of course, why these numerical values differ ? many thanks,

-- bogdan

Answers

  • BogdanBogdan ✭✭ Palo Alto, CAMember ✭✭

    Just to add one more little thing,

    shall I run MUTECT2 with -A options for FS, MQ, SOR, the FORMAT field in the VCF file is : GT:AD:AF:BCS

    while if I run MUTECT2 with NO -A options, the FORMAT field of the VCF file is
    GT:AD:AF:ALT_F1R2:ALT_F2R1:FOXOG:QSS:REF_F1R2:REF_F2R1.

    how shall I think about these differences ? many thanks again for your kind help !

    Issue · Github
    by Sheila

    Issue Number
    827
    State
    open
    Last Updated
    Assignee
    Array
    Milestone
    Array
  • Geraldine_VdAuweraGeraldine_VdAuwera admin Cambridge, MAMember, Administrator, Broadie admin

    Regarding your first question, this is probably due to shifts in the read alignments that happen as a result of graph assembly as documented for HaplotypeCaller.

    Regarding the second, it's an unintended side effect of the way the annotations are wired up right now -- requesting some annotations disables some of the defaults. This will be addressed in the near future. In the meantime, the recommendation is to leave the annotations alone.

    What you're trying to do diverges significantly from our Best Practices; all the annotations that we want to use for evaluating variants are annotated by default, and any that are not may in some cases be inappropriate to use for variant evaluation. In particular, the filtering annotations recommended for germline analysis are generally not appropriate to use for somatic analysis, and it would be far safer not to try to use them in the same way.

  • BogdanBogdan ✭✭ Palo Alto, CAMember ✭✭

    Dear Geraldine, that is very helpful, many thanks ! Shall the GATK team plan to organize a workshop at Stanford at some moment, we would be happy to help with a part of the organization ;)!

  • Geraldine_VdAuweraGeraldine_VdAuwera admin Cambridge, MAMember, Administrator, Broadie admin

    You're welcome. We don't organize remote workshops ourselves, we just accept invitations from institutions that host and organize the workshops. We are now taking invitations for 2017, if you know anyone who would be interested in inviting us.

  • BogdanBogdan ✭✭ Palo Alto, CAMember ✭✭

    Thanks, would have to ask a few people, and we can talk about it later ;)

Sign In or Register to comment.