Tagged with #haplotypescore
1 documentation article | 0 announcements | 3 forum discussions


Comments (0)

A new tool has been released!

Check out the documentation at HaplotypeScore.

No posts found with the requested search criteria.
Comments (1)

We're trying to run HaplotypeCaller with some additional annotations. For reference, here's the command we're using:

java -Xmx16g -jar GenomeAnalysisTK.jar -R GRCh37.fa -T HaplotypeCaller -A ReadPosRankSumTest -A RMSMappingQuality -A ClippingRankSumTest -A HaplotypeScore -A MappingQualityRankSumTest -o calls.vcf -I input.bam -nct 24

We're seeing ReadPosRanksum, Clippingranksum, and MQRanksum generated with our calls, but we're not seeing HaplotypeScore. Is HaplotypeScore only generated for certain variants? Does it depend on some other options that we're not using?

Thanks!

Comments (4)

I've run into a situation with HaplotypeScore that I just don't quite understand. This experiment consists of exome sequencing on 32 subjects with our phenotype of interest (no "normals"). A subset of the subjects have known variants that were identified by Sanger sequencing. One of those SNVs was called by UnifiedGenotyper, but then filtered out by VQSR. Here's the INFO for it:

AC=2;AF=0.031;AN=64;BaseQRankSum=10.532;DP=4793;Dels=0.00;FS=0.000;HaplotypeScore=11.1957;InbreedingCoeff=-0.0323;MLEAC=2;MLEAF=0.031;MQ=58.98;MQ0=0;MQRankSum=1.801;QD=12.47;ReadPosRankSum=0.696;VQSLOD=2.37;culprit=HaplotypeScore

As you can see, it's generally very good except that HaplotypeScore is high (the PASSing tranche in this dataset has a minimum VQSLOD of 3.17, so this is relatively close). When I started investigating in IGV, I noticed that a different subject carries a 3bp deletion 9 bases upstream (that is, nucleotides -11 through -9 relative to this SNV are deleted). My understanding of HaplotypeScore (which was confirmed by ebanks) is that it is calculated on each sample separately, and then averaged into a cohort score - so that deletion in a different sample shouldn't penalize my overall score.

But when I dropped the sample with the deletion and re-called everything, the HaplotypeScore dropped from 11.2 to 3.9. The other metrics didn't change substantially, and it now has a passing LOD. This says to me that the sample-level HaplotypeScore on that dropped sample was very high - but it doesn't look abnormal in IGV (the indel has no HS, of course).

Have I hit a dead end? I can't think of any other ways to look at this, and the answer may be that this is just an unlucky variant that can't be reliably classified (even with a process as cool as VQSR, there's bound to be a few of those). I'm about to re-call everything with HaplotypeCaller, do you have any other ideas of things I can try?

Comments (3)

Hello! I was wondering if the HaplotypeScore annotation was restored for HaplotypeCaller in GATK 2.6. Does it have to be called? (It's not included in my vcf file.) Moreover, all of the GT field designations have "/" instead of "|" which according to the following would mean that the results are still unphased:

"GT genotype, encoded as alleles values separated by either of ”/” or “|”, e.g. The allele values are 0 for the reference allele (what is in the reference sequence), 1 for the first allele listed in ALT, 2 for the second allele list in ALT and so on. For diploid calls examples could be 0/1 or 1|0 etc. For haploid calls, e.g. on Y, male X, mitochondrion, only one allele value should be given. All samples must have GT call information; if a call cannot be made for a sample at a given locus, ”.” must be specified for each missing allele in the GT field (for example ./. for a diploid). The meanings of the separators are: / : genotype unphased | : genotype phased" http://www.1000genomes.org/wiki/Analysis/Variant%20Call%20Format/vcf-variant-call-format-version-40

Also, is there a more detailed explanation than what's on the HaplotypeScore documentation page? How is the score determined in UnifiedGenotyper? Does the score have anything to do with phasing? Also, how is phasing achieved if only the 10bps surrounding the SNP are examined, regions which likely do not include other SNPs?

Thank you!