Unconfigured Ad

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • LiLin
    Member
    • May 2011
    • 15

    #1

    One Question about Varscan

    Hi,I have one question about varscan.

    There is one position,I think somatic_status should be Somatic,but the result show it reference.Is there anybody can explain it ?Thank you!

    chr position T G 26 1 3.7% T 40 10 20% K Reference 1.0 0.04709966879527449 15 25 4 6
  • Jane M
    Senior Member
    • Aug 2011
    • 239

    #2
    Hi,

    I don't have an answer but something similar:
    chr1 16946535 T C 2 16 88,89% C 8 6 42,86% Y Germline 1.0 0.007696151924037949 1 7 1 5
    The "somatic p_vlaue" is 0.007 and I chose the threshold as 0.05 so it should be classified as "Somatic"...

    Comment

    • dkoboldt
      Member
      • Mar 2009
      • 62

      #3
      Hello LiLin,

      There are a few criteria used to determine the somatic status of a variant. In your case, it seems most likely that --somatic-p-value was something lower than 0.47, so the variant did not meet the threshold to be called Somatic. Would you mind providing three things?
      1.) The VarScan version you're running
      2.) The command you used including all parameters
      3.) The normal and tumor pileup/mpileup for that chromosome position (it's fine if you alter the chromosome name or position; we need the depth, bases, and qualities).

      Jane, in your example, the variant is not called Somatic because the variant allele frequency is higher in normal (89%) than in tumor (43%).

      Comment

      • LiLin
        Member
        • May 2011
        • 15

        #4
        Hi,dkoboldt.
        1.)VarScan.v2.2.5.jar
        2.)Parameters:--min-coverage 10 --min-coverage-normal 10 --min-coverage-tumor 10 --min-var-freq 0.1 --min-freq-for-hom 0.75 --somatic-p-value 0.0001 --min-avg-qual 0 --validation 1
        3.)
        tumor mpileup:
        chr7 126351120 t 50 g,.,gg,.,,,..g,,,,GG..G,,.,,,,...,,...,,,,,g,G..g, 6CDDCCDDDC%DECD%%D;<DC;C%DDDD%CEDCDEDD%DC%4CC;DDB%
        normal mpileup:
        chr7 126351120 t 27 .,$...,.,,,C.,.,,,.,....,,.. B%EDDDDD%C#DEE%E%DDDEDDCDAD

        Comment

        • Jane M
          Senior Member
          • Aug 2011
          • 239

          #5
          Originally posted by dkoboldt View Post
          Jane, in your example, the variant is not called Somatic because the variant allele frequency is higher in normal (89%) than in tumor (43%).
          Code:
          chr1 16946535 T C 2 16 88,89% C 8 6 42,86% Y Germline 1.0 0.007696151924037949 1 7 1 5
          Dan, do you mean that if I had something like
          Code:
          0 100 50 50
          it would be classified as germline ?
          For me (but I am not biologist), it's a somatic mutation, as
          Code:
          0 100 100 0
          would be...
          Am I wrong?

          Comment

          • LiLin
            Member
            • May 2011
            • 15

            #6
            Originally posted by dkoboldt View Post
            Hello LiLin,

            There are a few criteria used to determine the somatic status of a variant. In your case, it seems most likely that --somatic-p-value was something lower than 0.47, so the variant did not meet the threshold to be called Somatic. Would you mind providing three things?
            1.) The VarScan version you're running
            2.) The command you used including all parameters
            3.) The normal and tumor pileup/mpileup for that chromosome position (it's fine if you alter the chromosome name or position; we need the depth, bases, and qualities).

            Jane, in your example, the variant is not called Somatic because the variant allele frequency is higher in normal (89%) than in tumor (43%).


            Thank you!
            Now I set --somatic-p-value 0.05,Then I find it.

            Comment

            Latest Articles

            Collapse

            • SEQadmin2
              Multiomic Liquid Biopsy: What DNA/RNA Panels Reveal That DNA Alone Can’t
              by SEQadmin2



              Tumors contain complex mixtures of cell populations that evolve in response to treatment and host-specific factors. Tissue biopsies provide only static snapshots of a tumor’s state. But what if we could follow that evolution over time using a minimally invasive technique?

              Liquid biopsies can detect tumor-derived material circulating in the bloodstream, providing a way to study treatment response, detect emerging resistance, and discover new biomarkers. Circulating
              ...
              10-14-2026, 09:55 AM
            • SEQadmin2
              New Genomics Technologies Take Aim at Long-Standing Limits
              by SEQadmin2


              Researchers using sequencing and genomics tools often have to make trade-offs. They can choose between speed or scale, short reads or long-range information, or targeted panels or a view of the whole transcriptome. New technologies that have been released this year are built to address those tough choices.

              We asked six companies the same four questions to learn about their latest products. The new technologies bring a lot to the table, including rethinking sequencing
              ...
              09-28-2026, 10:25 AM

            ad_right_rmr

            Collapse

            News

            Collapse

            Topics Statistics Last Post
            Started by SEQadmin2, 10-22-2026, 11:13 AM
            0 responses
            28 views
            0 reactions
            Last Post SEQadmin2  
            Started by SEQadmin2, 10-22-2026, 10:48 AM
            0 responses
            20 views
            0 reactions
            Last Post SEQadmin2  
            Started by SEQadmin2, 10-15-2026, 10:52 AM
            0 responses
            38 views
            0 reactions
            Last Post SEQadmin2  
            Started by SEQadmin2, 10-14-2026, 05:39 AM
            0 responses
            44 views
            0 reactions
            Last Post SEQadmin2  
            Working...