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

Discrepancies between sniffle 2.0.7 and sniffle 2.2 #445

Open
mhjiang97 opened this issue Dec 19, 2023 · 3 comments
Open

Discrepancies between sniffle 2.0.7 and sniffle 2.2 #445

mhjiang97 opened this issue Dec 19, 2023 · 3 comments

Comments

@mhjiang97
Copy link

mhjiang97 commented Dec 19, 2023

Hi!

I have a patient sample with a known gene fusion/genomic translocation (i.e. PAX5::ETV6).
Sniffle 2.0.7 did call this BND in the vcf by running sniffles --input mysample.bam --vcf out.vcf --non-germline --reference hg38.fa --tandem-repeats human_GRCh38_no_alt_analysis_set.trf.bed:

chr12  11824930        Sniffles2.BND.4C95S4    N       N]chr9:37002649]        60      PASS    PRECISE;SVTYPE=BND;SUPPORT=13;COVERAGE=18,18,40,38,37;STRAND=+-;NM=0.046;AF=0.406;CHR2=chr9;STDEV_POS=0.000 GT:GQ:DR:DV     0/1:60:19:13
chr9   37002650        Sniffles2.BND.4111S3A   N       N]chr12:11824929]       60      PASS    PRECISE;SVTYPE=BND;SUPPORT=14;COVERAGE=18,19,38,35,34;STRAND=+-;NM=0.048;AF=0.452;CHR2=chr12;STDEV_POS=2.504   GT:GQ:DR:DV     0/1:60:17:14

However, I cannot get similar results from Sniffles 2.2 by running:
sniffles --input mysample.bam --vcf out.vcf --mosaic --sample-id mysample --mosaic-af-max 0.5 --mosaic-af-min 0.01 --reference hg38.fa --tandem-repeats human_GRCh38_no_alt_analysis_set.trf.bed --mosaic-include-germline
In addition, I also tried to add the following flags but still got no BND indicating the known translocation: --bnd-min-split-length 500, --qc-bnd-filter-strand False, --bnd-min-split-length 1, --cluster-merge-bnd 1500

Could you please advise me how to make sure the results of Sniffles 2.2 reliable? THANKS IN ADVANCE!

Best regards,
Minghao

@fritzsedlazeck
Copy link
Owner

I think a potential issue is that --mosaic tag. We refined parameters for --mosaic to only report SV with VAF 5-20%. So what you want to do is leading the --mosaic tag out since I see you have a heterozygous variant.
I hope that makes sense . We are trying to make this more obvious and integrated , but for now mosaic and default mode address 5-20% VAF and 20+% VAF , respectively.
If you ever want to debug on sniffles use --no-qc which writes out all the candidates.
Thanks
Fritz

@eesiribloom
Copy link

if @mhjiang97 is using the --mosaic-include-germline tag will sniffles not report both SVs with AF 5-20% AND >20% ?

@lfpaulin
Copy link
Collaborator

Yes, however we have received some reports that sometimes variants are missing, if that is the case for you please let us know

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

4 participants