Unconfigured Ad

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • eeyun
    Junior Member
    • Jan 2013
    • 9

    #1

    VarScan mpileup2snp missing a call - can't figure out why

    VarScan mpileup to snp seems to be missing a call

    the mpileup file looks like this...

    Code:
    chr5	13894894	T		40	.a.AAAAAaAA,aaaaA,,aAA,AaaAaAaAaAAa,.,.,	B02/8/0///0G/3/10GH///C/5//0511//10HHH3A	55	a,....Aa,.AAa,aAAA.a,,,,...,,a..,,A,.,.,AaAAaA.aaA.,,,a	!DHHHH0/HH1//H////G/HHGHHGFHH/GGHH/HHHFC////1/G/00FHHH)
    Then, I'm using the following options in VarScan
    Code:
    mpileup2snp --min-coverage 20 --min-var-freq 0.2 --min-reads2 4 --strand-filter 1 --output-vcf 1 >whatever.vcf
    And this is the line in the VCF where the problem is...

    Code:
    chr5	13894894	.	T	A	.	PASS	ADP=32;WT=1;HET=2;HOM=0;NC=1	GT:GQ:SDP:DP:RD:AD:FREQ:PVAL:RBQ:ABQ:RDF:RDR:ADF:ADR		0/1:53:40:25:11:14:56%:4.7528E-6:33:16:4:7:7:7		0/0:32:55:37:32:5:13.51%:2.706E-2:38:15:15:17:3:2
    Attached is an image from IVG of the two alignments (front to back replicates of the same specimen, variant is clearly in both, but not in VCF)

    Any thoughts? Apologies is the answer is obvious, but I can't seem to figure it out.

    Thanks in advance
    Attached Files
  • dkoboldt
    Member
    • Mar 2009
    • 62

    #2
    Thank you for posting. From the VarScan VCF entry for sample 2:
    0/0:32:55:37:32:5:13.51%:2.706E-2:38:15:15:17:3:2

    You can see that the VAF as computed by VarScan is 13.51%, which is below your minimum threshold of 20%.

    Notably, VarScan depth (DP, field 4) is 37 whereas the raw SAMtools depth (SDP, field 3) is 55. This suggests that the raw pileup and IGV are showing about 18 reads whose base qualities are below VarScan's threshold.

    Comment

    • eeyun
      Junior Member
      • Jan 2013
      • 9

      #3
      Originally posted by dkoboldt View Post
      Thank you for posting. From the VarScan VCF entry for sample 2:
      0/0:32:55:37:32:5:13.51%:2.706E-2:38:15:15:17:3:2

      You can see that the VAF as computed by VarScan is 13.51%, which is below your minimum threshold of 20%.

      Notably, VarScan depth (DP, field 4) is 37 whereas the raw SAMtools depth (SDP, field 3) is 55. This suggests that the raw pileup and IGV are showing about 18 reads whose base qualities are below VarScan's threshold.
      Thanks very much for the reply.

      I had wondered whether this was a result of the base quality being downgraded by samtools, and therefore not read by varscan. I've tried mpileup with -B and -E, but neither seems to make much difference.

      It's not a huge issue as overall concordance between the two specimens is very good, but I like to chase down the "misses". I might try a different quality threshold in varscan and see if that helps at all.

      Comment

      • eeyun
        Junior Member
        • Jan 2013
        • 9

        #4
        I'm sorry to re-ask the same question again, but I've noticed another missed variant call using the same above pipeline, and this one I can't figure out based on the base qualities. If anyone can point out what I'm missing, I'd really appreciate it.

        mpileup at position
        Code:
        chr11	89017961	G	26	..A.A,a....,a....A,,.a,.,,	GG5?5H6GEGGG52GG06FHC6BAHH
        As far as I can tell, the variant bases have an average quality of around 20 and the reference bases have an average quality of around 30 (am I wrong?). There should be no strand bias issues.

        Yet, using the following VarScan parameters does not yield the variant in the vcf.

        Code:
        --min-coverage 20 --min-var-freq 0.2 --min-reads2 4 --output-vcf 1 --strand-filter 1
        Any help greatly appreciated, I'm really lost on this one.

        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
        61 views
        0 reactions
        Last Post SEQadmin2  
        Started by SEQadmin2, 10-22-2026, 10:48 AM
        0 responses
        43 views
        0 reactions
        Last Post SEQadmin2  
        Started by SEQadmin2, 10-15-2026, 10:52 AM
        0 responses
        76 views
        0 reactions
        Last Post SEQadmin2  
        Started by SEQadmin2, 10-14-2026, 05:39 AM
        0 responses
        74 views
        0 reactions
        Last Post SEQadmin2  
        Working...