Daniel:Notebook/Haplotyping/2014-8-14: Difference between revisions

From ZhangLabWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
>Djacobse
No edit summary
>Djacobse
Line 52: Line 52:
  --eval:bacpools pgp1_variants_bac_all.vcf \
  --eval:bacpools pgp1_variants_bac_all.vcf \
  --comp pgp1.vcf
  --comp pgp1.vcf
===Results===
3088900 variants evaluated, 411138 (13.31%) of which were novel.  Of the 2677762 common variants, 2676669 (99.96%) were concordant.
==Variant Comparison: Analysis==
It would appear that Eric's microfluidic data has considerably higher amount of novel variants than the Complete Genomics/BAC pool data.  This is probably due to the unfiltered nature of the variants.  As such, I'm going to have to run VQSR on the microfluidic variants.

Revision as of 18:03, 14 August 2014

Microfluidic Data

Back to Calendar

Variant Comparison: BacPools (From 8/13/2014)

It took a while to combine vcfs, but now I have all the .vcfs from the bacpool data merged into a single .vcf. This will now be used to compare against the microfluidic data. Ideally, we should see high concordance between the .vcfs. To compare, I ran the following command in GATK:

java -Xmx2g -jar /home/kunzhang/softwares/GenomeAnalysisTK-latest/GenomeAnalysisTK.jar \
-T VariantEval \
-R /media/Ext12T/GenomeDB/HsGenome/resources/human_g1k_v37.fasta \
-o output.eval.pgp1.bacpools.report \
--eval:Indx09 Indx09/Indx09.snp.raw.vcf \
--eval:Indx10 Indx10/Indx10.snp.raw.vcf \
--eval:Indx11 Indx11/Indx11.snp.raw.vcf \
--eval:Indx12 Indx12/Indx12.snp.raw.vcf \
--eval:Indx13 Indx13/Indx13.snp.raw.vcf \
--eval:Indx14 Indx14/Indx14.snp.raw.vcf \
--eval:Indx15 Indx15/Indx15.snp.raw.vcf \
--eval:Indx16 Indx16/Indx16.snp.raw.vcf \
--eval:Indx17 Indx17/Indx17.snp.raw.vcf \
--eval:Indx18 Indx18/Indx18.snp.raw.vcf \
--eval:Indx19 Indx19/Indx19.snp.raw.vcf \
--eval:Indx20 Indx20/Indx20.snp.raw.vcf \
--eval:Indx21 Indx21/Indx21.snp.raw.vcf \
--eval:Indx22 Indx22/Indx22.snp.raw.vcf \
--eval:Indx23 Indx23/Indx23.snp.raw.vcf \
--eval:Indx24 Indx24/Indx24.snp.raw.vcf \
--eval:Indx25 Indx25/Indx25.snp.raw.vcf \
--eval:Indx26 Indx26/Indx26.snp.raw.vcf \
--eval:Indx27 Indx27/Indx27.snp.raw.vcf \
--eval:Indx28 Indx28/Indx28.snp.raw.vcf \
--eval:Indx29 Indx29/Indx29.snp.raw.vcf \
--eval:Indx30 Indx30/Indx30.snp.raw.vcf \
--eval:Indx31 Indx31/Indx31.snp.raw.vcf \
--eval:Indx32 Indx32/Indx32.snp.raw.vcf \
--comp pgp1_variants_bac_all.vcf \
--mergeEvals

Results

There were 43269 total variants with 14824 (34.3%) of them novel. Of the 28445 common variants, 28423 (99.92%) were concordant.

Variant Comparison:BAC pools and Complete Genomics

Seems pertinent, as a control for the microfluidic data. The microfluidic data seemed to have a lot of novel variants (around 33% for both comparison sets), so we'll see how the comparison sets stack up with each other.

java -Xmx2g -jar /home/kunzhang/softwares/GenomeAnalysisTK-latest/GenomeAnalysisTK.jar \
-T VariantEval \
-R /media/Ext12T/GenomeDB/HsGenome/resources/human_g1k_v37.fasta \
-o output.eval.pgp1.cg.bacpools.report \
--eval:bacpools pgp1_variants_bac_all.vcf \
--comp pgp1.vcf

Results

3088900 variants evaluated, 411138 (13.31%) of which were novel. Of the 2677762 common variants, 2676669 (99.96%) were concordant.

Variant Comparison: Analysis

It would appear that Eric's microfluidic data has considerably higher amount of novel variants than the Complete Genomics/BAC pool data. This is probably due to the unfiltered nature of the variants. As such, I'm going to have to run VQSR on the microfluidic variants.