Question: How low is OK to accept variants in high/low GC content regions?
0
gravatar for Tania
2.4 years ago by
Tania130
Tania130 wrote:

Hi Every one

If we have an interesting variant in a very high GC content, so we expect low coverage anyway. The variant has depth 18 with AD 15,3.

Is having 3 reads enough to say there is a variant at this site? GQ = 78.

Given that the all the reads has 58-60 Mapping quality, All the bases quality are between 35 -40 and the variant passes the hard filtering of GATK pipeline, like QD =2.7 (greater than 2) , FS <10 , SOR <3 and all other metrics given GATK suggestions pass..etc.

Thanks

exome sequencing vcf • 743 views
ADD COMMENTlink modified 2.4 years ago by Kevin Blighe65k • written 2.4 years ago by Tania130
1

Tania : This is an open forum for bioinformatics research projects. No one here is qualified to offer advice that can be applied in patient care. @Kevin has done the due diligence of recommending additional investigation but please keep in mind that the help provided on Biostars is for "research" applications only.

ADD REPLYlink written 2.4 years ago by genomax89k

I understand, and I did not ask about any patient care advice,I am even a computer science student ! I asked how low is ok for high/low gc content. I never mentioned patient care.

ADD REPLYlink modified 2.4 years ago • written 2.4 years ago by Tania130

Good to hear that. This part had raised some concern. Perhaps you were referring to other patients that are waiting to see him.

but my advisor is a medical professor, and he has his patients waiting. At least I can include it now to him if I have a logic behind low coverage and worrying AD, and he can decide what to do with the patients.

ADD REPLYlink modified 2.4 years ago • written 2.4 years ago by genomax89k

Not me, my advisor, and this is when Kevin mentioned patient care, I said I am checking the logic behind my analysis and he cab decide whatever he think with his patients :) Actually, this is my role, I discuss with my advisor my bioinformatics logic, and never think about this patient care stuff, he decides :) Thanks genomax for highlighting this anyway, I can be careful in discussions not to raise any concerns :)

ADD REPLYlink written 2.4 years ago by Tania130
2
gravatar for Kevin Blighe
2.4 years ago by
Kevin Blighe65k
Kevin Blighe65k wrote:

I have called Sanger-confirmed homozygous variants from just a single read, in the past, and Sanger-confirmed heterozygous from a minimum of 2 (clinical samples); however, calls at total read depths this low would never be included in a clinical setting, and the affected sample would be repeated.

In your case, the total read-depth over the position is actually 18. if it has passed all QC metrics, then you could 'proceed with caution'. The total read depth of 18 is actually the minimum required for certain labs in the UK National Health Service in terms of clinical genetic testing.

The imbalance on AD is worrying but not unusual.

Hopefully the GATK has called it heterozygous.

ADD COMMENTlink modified 2.4 years ago • written 2.4 years ago by Kevin Blighe65k

Thanks Kevin. Yes, GATK called it heterozygous with GQ =78. I also checked the region mappability, it has Duke uniqueness score 1. So, I think it is mappable as far as I understand.

ADD REPLYlink written 2.4 years ago by Tania130
1

Yes, and you have stated that the MAPQs are good, too. Many regions of the genome suffer dips in depth of coverage, and a lot of this does have to do with GC content, which affects the unwinding ('melting') of the DNA double-helix and also the binding affinity of primers/adapters. Data shows that high-GC regions actually require a higher melting temperature than that which is typically used, and that this (coupled with a few other extra processing steps) can then make depth of coverage more uniform.

Look at it this way: If this variant was called in my former lab in the NHS and there was a patient waiting on the result, it would be preliminarily included but would only make the final report with Sanger confirmation. I can only guess that your work is research only, in which case I believe to include it is not an issue.

ADD REPLYlink written 2.4 years ago by Kevin Blighe65k

Thanks Kevin, I am not a medical doctor, but my advisor is a medical professor, and he has his patients waiting. At least I can include it now to him if I have a logic behind low coverage and worrying AD, and he can decide what to do with the patients. Thanks Kevin so much, appreciated.

ADD REPLYlink written 2.4 years ago by Tania130
2

In that case, I would aim to confirm it via Sanger sequencing. This variant is obviously key; otherwise, you would not be discussing it here. As such, if a clinical decision could be made based on this variant, then you require more evidence.

ADD REPLYlink written 2.4 years ago by Kevin Blighe65k

Ok, thanks Kevin so much, really much appreciated.

ADD REPLYlink written 2.4 years ago by Tania130

If an answer was helpful you should upvote it, if the answer resolved your question you should mark it as accepted.
Upvote|Bookmark|Accept

ADD REPLYlink written 2.4 years ago by WouterDeCoster44k
Please log in to add an answer.

Help
Access

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.
Powered by Biostar version 2.3.0
Traffic: 1267 users visited in the last hour