Hi Mehar.

What dog breed are your sequences from? If not ref (boxer) might explain
the large number of variants.

Ciaran



On Thursday, 9 October 2014, mehar <meharji.arumi...@helsinki.fi
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','meharji.arumi...@helsinki.fi');>> wrote:

>  Hi all,
>
> I have used bcftools to filter the variants on my WES dataset with the
> below shown parameters:
>
> vcfutils.pl varFilter -Q 40 -d 10 -a 10 SamSNP.vcf | awk '$6<=30'
>
> In detail, RMSmapping quality, Q 40
> minimum depth 10
> minimum reads for alternate base 10
>
> and then QUAL<=30
>
> Then i tried to investigate the resulting variants which are shown below:
>
> chr1    18440259    .    A    G    24    .
> DP=41;VDB=3.198325e-03;RPB=-2.855659e+00;AF1=0.5;AC1=1;DP4=17,11,11,0;MQ=53;FQ=27;PV4=0.017,1.2e-08,2e-37,1
> GT:PL:GQ    0/1:54,0,242:57
> chr1    78618486    .    T    C    8.64    .
> DP=62;VDB=1.595146e-01;RPB=-8.823841e-01;AF1=0.5;AC1=1;DP4=3,37,2,16;MQ=46;FQ=11.3;PV4=0.64,1,7.8e-21,0.3
> GT:PL:GQ    0/1:38,0,192:40
> chr1    84078188    .    G    A    6.98    .
> DP=71;VDB=8.165945e-03;RPB=7.733564e-01;AF1=0.4999;AC1=1;DP4=21,30,11,9;MQ=52;FQ=9.53;PV4=0.43,0.21,2.3e-36,1
> GT:PL:GQ    0/1:36,0,255:37
> chr1    84078211    .    T    C    9.52    .
> DP=68;VDB=7.138134e-03;RPB=3.693204e+00;AF1=0.5;AC1=1;DP4=16,32,10,9;MQ=52;FQ=12.3;PV4=0.17,1,9.9e-34,1
> GT:PL:GQ    0/1:39,0,255:41
> chr1    84078212    .    G    A    8.64    .
> DP=67;VDB=7.138134e-03;RPB=3.894576e+00;AF1=0.5;AC1=1;DP4=16,31,10,9;MQ=52;FQ=11.3;PV4=0.18,0.015,3.6e-33,1
> GT:PL:GQ    0/1:38,0,255:40
> chr1    84078223    .    C    A    4.77    .
> DP=62;VDB=1.658616e-03;RPB=3.810234e+00;AF1=0.4999;AC1=1;DP4=16,30,9,6;MQ=53;FQ=6.99;PV4=0.13,0.0041,1.1e-30,0.0018
> GT:PL:GQ    0/1:33,0,255:33
> chr1    102442684    .    A    C    30    .
> DP=80;VDB=2.593477e-02;RPB=2.321748e+00;AF1=0.5;AC1=1;DP4=9,49,0,19;MQ=51;FQ=33;PV4=0.1,1,3.1e-15,0.39
> GT:PL:GQ    0/1:60,0,229:63
>
>
> Despite the QUAL value is less than 30, most of the variants have good
> coverage. I wonder how these variants should be treated. Could someone
> comment on this behaviour to get a better understanding whether to discard
> or retain these variants.
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meet PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance Requirements with EventLog Analyzer
Achieve PCI DSS 3.0 Compliant Status with Out-of-the-box PCI DSS Reports
Are you Audit-Ready for PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance? Download White paper
Comply to PCI DSS 3.0 Requirement 10 and 11.5 with EventLog Analyzer
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=154622311&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Samtools-help mailing list
Samtools-help@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/samtools-help

Reply via email to