You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I have an issue that is puzzling me. I have two salmonella samples that I'm comparing and expect them to be highly similar if not identical. I have mapped them with bowtie2 (three different versions as I was investigating if it was the mapping that was the issue) and created a mpileup and called variants with bcftools v 1.14 and 1.17 (no difference in the result)
bcftools call -m -v -O v --ploidy 1
I'm getting some variant calls that I don't understand. Here is the best example. There are three copies of each sample as I was checking if there was any difference between bowtie2 versions.
NC_003197.2 1349066 . C T 720.935 . DP=815;VDB=0.00653457;SGB=-21.0274;RPBZ=-12.8027;MQBZ=-8.78292;MQSBZ=4.75308;BQBZ=6.99271;SCBZ=0;FS=0;MQ0F=0.00368098;AC=3;AN=6;DP4=4,76,70,101;MQ=37 GT:PL 0:0,112 0:0,112 0:0,118 1:255,0 1:255,0 1:255,0
I have also tried running the mpileup with a MQ threshold of 20, which barely makes a difference.
For sample 1 there are 23 reads supporting REF and 126 reads supporting ALT. For sample 2 there are 8 reads supporting REF and 112 reads supporting ALT (plus 2 reads supporting a second ALT). However bcftools seems pretty confident in the REF call for sample 1 and very confident in the ALT call for sample 2. Why is this? I would expect more uncertainty, so I could filter this position :)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Yes, I also found that the specified MQ threshold didn't seem to work.
For example, when using -q 20, it still uses 30 as the threshold; and when using -q 40 (greater than 30), it uses 40 normally.
Maybe we can discuss bcftools further. It will be more efficient to use WeChat or other instant tools.
Hi!
I have an issue that is puzzling me. I have two salmonella samples that I'm comparing and expect them to be highly similar if not identical. I have mapped them with bowtie2 (three different versions as I was investigating if it was the mapping that was the issue) and created a mpileup and called variants with bcftools v 1.14 and 1.17 (no difference in the result)
bcftools call -m -v -O v --ploidy 1
I'm getting some variant calls that I don't understand. Here is the best example. There are three copies of each sample as I was checking if there was any difference between bowtie2 versions.
I have also tried running the mpileup with a MQ threshold of 20, which barely makes a difference.
For sample 1 there are 23 reads supporting REF and 126 reads supporting ALT. For sample 2 there are 8 reads supporting REF and 112 reads supporting ALT (plus 2 reads supporting a second ALT). However bcftools seems pretty confident in the REF call for sample 1 and very confident in the ALT call for sample 2. Why is this? I would expect more uncertainty, so I could filter this position :)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: