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

Lofreq viterbi #144

Open
rahil19 opened this issue Apr 26, 2024 · 3 comments
Open

Lofreq viterbi #144

rahil19 opened this issue Apr 26, 2024 · 3 comments

Comments

@rahil19
Copy link

rahil19 commented Apr 26, 2024

Hi,
I recently used Lofreq v 2.1.5 to make variants calls to the HIV WGS data. Before running lofreq I aligned reads to BWA and filtered for properly paired alignment using samtools. After running lofreq commands in the following series:
viterbi --> indelqual --> alnqual --> call, I noticed made some frameshift mutation calls. Upon looking at the alignment on IGV at one of the frameshift mutation region, the top one shows before the lofreq preprocessing and the bottom one after lofreq preprocessing. As you can see the viterbi step introduces insertion and deletion on the same reads resulting in 2 frameshift insertions and deletions reported on 29% of the reads as shown below:

Sample HGVS.g HGVS.c HGVS.p lofreq Variant_Type lofreq_Var_Count
A NC_001802.1:g.5212_5213insCC HIV1gp4:c.108_109insCC vpr:p.Ile37fs 0.290914 frameshift_variant 3269
A NC_001802.1:g.5214_5215delTT HIV1gp4:c.111_112delTT vpr:p.Ile37fs 0.295586 frameshift_variant 3268

Because insertion and deletion are present on the same read it looks more like an artifact than real. How do I fix this? Should I be removing the viterbi step? If so, do I still keep the indelqual and alnqual steps?

I've also found regions where the alignments were completely missing due to BWA (2nd figure attached) and I was wondering if I provide lofreq with raw alignment bam file (containing unmapped reads) instead of filtered proper paired alignment bam, viterbi step can possibly realign the unmapped reads in those regions with gaps?
Lofreq_viterbi_realignment_issue
No_read_mapping_region

@ammaraziz
Copy link

The docs say viterbi is not recommended for illumia data.

Did you perform the gatk best practices step before running lofreq?

@ebioman
Copy link

ebioman commented Nov 4, 2024

Sorry but is it though ?
The docs says:

Probabilistic realignment of your already mapped reads, which corrects mapping errors (run right after mapping). Not recommended for non-Illumina data.

For me that's the opposite: only use it if you have Illumina data

@ammaraziz
Copy link

Apologies you are correct. I think I misread the docs or that's a typo thinking jt was nanopore data.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants