Seqanswers Leaderboard Ad

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Filtering steps for VarScan2 somatic and germline calls

    What is the proper filtering pipeline for somatic mutation detection using VarScan2, with tumor/normal paired samples?
    My understanding of the steps:
    0. VarScan2 somatic to make calls
    Then filter:
    1. VarScan2 processSomatic to separte calls Germline/Somatic/LOH and call some "high confidence"
    2. VarScan2 somaticFilter on the Somatic.hc file to do further filtering.
    - as I understand, this is where filtering for false positives aroudn indels take place
    - it also seems to look at p-values and such - is it not redundant with the previous step?
    3. fpfilter.pl on the resulting data for further filtering?
    (in my hands this step seems to hang indefinitely without doing anything, though. not sure why)

    My questions are:
    - is this a correct order of steps, or are some of the 3 filtering steps redundant or obsolete?
    - what are the recommended parameter settings for bam-read-count, especially mapping quality q? Should it be 1, as is recommended for mpileup, or higher?

    Now, if I want to detect germline mutations in the same sample, can I just use the "Germline" (and I guess LOH) calls from VarScan?
    Dan Koboldt seems to think so, as long as one uses the normal bamcount in step 3. Should "VarScan2 filter" be used in step 2? Or should a separate germline mutation caller be used for this purpose?

    Thank you,
    Elena

  • #2
    Elena,

    You could probably just perform steps 1 and 3 and get a good high-confidence set of somatic mutation calls.... the somaticFilter command is more simplistic than the filter false positives.

    If you want the germline calls, combine Germline.hc and LOH.hc files, and then run that through the false positive filter with the NORMAL bam.

    As for bam-readcount, I'd recommend at least mapping quality of 1 and base quality of 15.

    Comment


    • #3
      Thanks, Dan!
      (BTW, I just posted another VarScan question as a separate thread http://seqanswers.com/forums/showthr...364#post109364 - it'd be really great if you could answer it as well.)

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by dkoboldt View Post
        Elena,

        You could probably just perform steps 1 and 3 and get a good high-confidence set of somatic mutation calls.... the somaticFilter command is more simplistic than the filter false positives.

        If you want the germline calls, combine Germline.hc and LOH.hc files, and then run that through the false positive filter with the NORMAL bam.

        As for bam-readcount, I'd recommend at least mapping quality of 1 and base quality of 15.
        Hi dkoboldt,

        Can filterfp.pl be used to filter the somatic indels?

        Can I combine the indel vcf and snp vcf from the output of varscan somatic, and then filter the vcf file using step 1 and step 3? Does this works for both snp and indel in the vcf file?

        Comment


        • #5
          Hi all,
          I have a similar question regarding the germline mutations. I have several tumor-normal samples for which I have used the somatic command and I want to check several genes for germline mutations. From the publication is stated that hc variants are the ones with at least 10% allele frequency in normal and tumor samples.
          This varinat is in the hc file:
          chr1 565088 C T 0 37 100% T 4 19 82.61% T Germline 1.0 0.018159073897484498 2 2 10 9 0 0 22 15
          while this one
          chr1 741267 T C 33 38 53.52% Y 30 22 42.31% Y Germline 5.540944545408712E-23 0.9211526256316275 2 28 3 19 10 23 5
          33
          is not. The numbers of reads and the percentages seem to be ok, but I fail to understand why the variants are categorized differently.
          Any help would be highly appreciated.

          Thank you in advance

          Comment

          Latest Articles

          Collapse

          • seqadmin
            Essential Discoveries and Tools in Epitranscriptomics
            by seqadmin


            The field of epigenetics has traditionally concentrated more on DNA and how changes like methylation and phosphorylation of histones impact gene expression and regulation. However, our increased understanding of RNA modifications and their importance in cellular processes has led to a rise in epitranscriptomics research. “Epitranscriptomics brings together the concepts of epigenetics and gene expression,” explained Adrien Leger, PhD, Principal Research Scientist on Modified Bases...
            Yesterday, 07:01 AM
          • seqadmin
            Current Approaches to Protein Sequencing
            by seqadmin


            Proteins are often described as the workhorses of the cell, and identifying their sequences is key to understanding their role in biological processes and disease. Currently, the most common technique used to determine protein sequences is mass spectrometry. While still a valuable tool, mass spectrometry faces several limitations and requires a highly experienced scientist familiar with the equipment to operate it. Additionally, other proteomic methods, like affinity assays, are constrained...
            04-04-2024, 04:25 PM

          ad_right_rmr

          Collapse

          News

          Collapse

          Topics Statistics Last Post
          Started by seqadmin, 04-11-2024, 12:08 PM
          0 responses
          39 views
          0 likes
          Last Post seqadmin  
          Started by seqadmin, 04-10-2024, 10:19 PM
          0 responses
          41 views
          0 likes
          Last Post seqadmin  
          Started by seqadmin, 04-10-2024, 09:21 AM
          0 responses
          35 views
          0 likes
          Last Post seqadmin  
          Started by seqadmin, 04-04-2024, 09:00 AM
          0 responses
          55 views
          0 likes
          Last Post seqadmin  
          Working...
          X