Genome Analysis Toolkit

Variant Discovery in High-Throughput Sequencing Data

GATK process banner

Need Help?

Search our documentation

Community Forum

Hi, How can we help?

Developed in the Data Sciences Platform at the Broad Institute, the toolkit offers a wide variety of tools with a primary focus on variant discovery and genotyping. Its powerful processing engine and high-performance computing features make it capable of taking on projects of any size. Learn more

Mutect2 - AD does not match AF neither IGV

0

4 comments

  • Avatar
    Gökalp Çelik

    Hi Fran

    This is all about informative reads. Mutect2/HaplotypeCaller uses local reassembly and realignment to capture variants in active regions therefore certain reads may not be used due to filters applied onto them. Once  filtered remaining reads will be used to generate kmers and reassembled haplotypes. So AD and DP values may not match exactly what you see in IGV. 

    https://gatk.broadinstitute.org/hc/en-us/articles/360035532252-Allele-Depth-AD-is-lower-than-expected 

    I hope this helps.

    Regards. 

    1
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Fran

    Thanks for your answer. I have other questions:

    • Then why I can't see the realigned reads that match the reported AD in the bam I got using the "--bam-output" option. I thought this bam contained the filtered and reassembled reads.

    • Why is AF reported as 0.018? Since AD is "1042,1056", I would expect that, following those values, the reported AF to be AF = 1042 / (1056 + 1042) = 0.49.

     

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Gökalp Çelik

    Hi again. 

    Can you try running your sample through a more recent version such as 4.6.1.0. There seems to be a bug fix somewhere in between 4.4.0.0 and 4.5.0.0 about the way AD is calculated. So this could be due to that particular bug present in 4.4.0.0. 

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    alejandra

    Hello, 

    I have a similar issue that the AF value does not match the AD values. I would expect that the informative values are used to estimate AF.

    e.g. 

    chr3 51311924 . G C . PASS AS_FilterStatus=SITE;AS_SB_TABLE=111,0|10,0;DP=129;ECNT=1;GERMQ=93;MBQ=38,39;MFRL=231,233;MMQ=60,60;MPOS=33;POPAF=7.3;ROQ=51;TLOD=27.57 GT:AD:AF:DP:F1R2:F2R1:FAD:SB 0/1:111,10:0.089:121:58,6:53,4:111,10:111,0,10,0

    Based on this, AF should be 10/121=0.08264, rather than 0.089. 

    The difference is not that big as it's been reported in the comment above, but still there is a difference. Is this a bug? 

     

     

    0
    Comment actions Permalink

Please sign in to leave a comment.

Powered by Zendesk