Heads up:
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.

StrandArtifect fields missed in normal sample in Mutect2 output

siriansirian USMember ✭✭
edited June 2018 in Ask the GATK team

I used the latest version of Mutect2 to call somatic variants by comparing a tumor sample versus a normal sample. There is inconsistency of the fields between columns "FORMAT", "NORMAL" and "TUMOR". Taking one variant as an example:

1 3009350 . T TTG . . DP=59;ECNT=1;NLOD=2.46;N_ART_LOD=-9.935e-01;POP_AF=1.000e-05;RPA=26,27;RU=TG;STR;TLOD=10.24 GT:AD:AF:F1R2:F2R1:MBQ:MFRL:MMQ:MPOS:SA_MAP_AF:SA_POST_PROB 0/0:8,0:0.409:5,0:3,0:0:353,0:0:0 0/1:3,5:0.565:2,3:1,2:28:221,218:60:5:0.616,0.566,0.625:0.018,0.044,0.938

The last two fields "SA_MAP_AF" and "SA_POST_PROB" were calculated for only tumor sample (last column), but missed in normal sample (10th column), which resulted in discrepancy between FORMAT column and the normal sample column. Is it true that Mutect2 only reports them for tumor sample? If so, it'd be best to let Mutect2 print missing values (eg. a period) to fill the last two fields for normal sample.


Sign In or Register to comment.