Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Can probably eliminate sort in RealignIndels #1137

Closed
fnothaft opened this issue Aug 28, 2016 · 7 comments
Closed

Can probably eliminate sort in RealignIndels #1137

fnothaft opened this issue Aug 28, 2016 · 7 comments
Labels
Milestone

Comments

@fnothaft
Copy link
Member

@fnothaft fnothaft commented Aug 28, 2016

We have a sort in the INDEL realigner that takes most of the realignment time. We do this so that we can get the full alignment position of all reads that cover a target, but this is actually an unnecessary step, since we join the reads back later and just check for overlap. If we eliminate this, we should improve INDEL realignment runtime by ~60% with negligible impact on accuracy.

I'm thinking that I'll support this via a flag.

@NeillGibson
Copy link
Contributor

@NeillGibson NeillGibson commented Sep 18, 2016

GATK and Freebayes handle indel realignment inside the variant caller, eliminating the extra realign indels step.

FreeBayes documentation:

Indel realignment is accomplished internally using a read-independent method, 
and issues resulting from discordant alignments are dramatically reducedy through the direct detection of haplotypes.

GATK documentation:

Note that indel realignment is no longer necessary for variant discovery if you plan to use a variant caller that performs a haplotype assembly step, 
such as HaplotypeCaller or MuTect2. 
However it is still required when using legacy callers such as UnifiedGenotyper or the original MuTect.

If the variant caller(s) that you plan to use with Adam also are haplotype aware this would mean that you could drop the indel realignment step/tool.

@iskandr
Copy link

@iskandr iskandr commented Dec 12, 2016

@fnothaft Do you think your indel realigner would work with spliced RNA reads? (GATK drops those reads)

@fnothaft
Copy link
Member Author

@fnothaft fnothaft commented Dec 12, 2016

Hi @iskandr! I believe it should, but if it doesn't, I'd be glad to help get that in. Do you have a dataset in mind that I could check on? Let me know if it'd be helpful to find a time to chat.

@iskandr
Copy link

@iskandr iskandr commented Dec 12, 2016

@ihodes ^ maybe another option for us? I'll try to take a subset of one of our B6.F10 (mouse melanoma) BAMs as example input.

@fnothaft
Copy link
Member Author

@fnothaft fnothaft commented Dec 13, 2016

That'd be great! I can take a look.

@fnothaft
Copy link
Member Author

@fnothaft fnothaft commented Mar 3, 2017

This will be resolved after #1324.

@fnothaft
Copy link
Member Author

@fnothaft fnothaft commented May 12, 2017

Resolved by #1324.

@fnothaft fnothaft closed this May 12, 2017
@heuermh heuermh modified the milestone: 0.23.0 Jul 22, 2017
@heuermh heuermh added this to Completed in Release 0.23.0 Jan 4, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
Linked pull requests

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

None yet
4 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.