Shall I change bcftools mpileup max depth?
Hello,
I would like to run a variant calling with bcftools; I am following the lead from this post and it is said to increase the coverage with --max-depth since it is by default 250.
Shall I really change it or it is due to a previous version? I am using bcftools 1.9-26-g73a628e-dirty
And what value should be the coverage to provide?
Thank you
• 2,009 views
•
link
written
by
marongiu.luigi
0 answers
No answers yet.
Log in to answer this question.
More posts like this
-
bcftools not calling variants that appear high quality
written by bertb •
-
Why does bcftools call from different max-depth (-d) value in mpileup give inconstant GT values?
written by magnolia •
-
alignement and Variant calling with BWA and samtools
written by simon.burgermeister •
-
Variant position showed up in mpileup but not in VCF call
written by leemhmark •
-
bfctools merge [E::hts_open_format] Failed to open file
written by andemexoax •
-
bcftools mpileup --max depth : What would be a reasonable setting for this option?
written by VBer
-
Variant Calling (Samtools Mpileup): Error
written by venuraherath •
-
deciding --max-depth for RNAseq variant calling
written by prasundutta87
-
Variant calling - display nucleotides with 0 coverage
written by yarmda •
-
getting base count (coverage) based on BAM file with strand information
written by J.F.Jiang
It depends on what you want yourself so maybe you should add that to your question. If you want to call variants and sequence really deep and need to be absolutely sure about certain variants you can put it on 999999 so to speak.
well, of course, I would like to have variants with high probability.
You should ask yourself if these variants are reliable. If you have an average coverage of e.g. 30 and a variant supported by 10000 reads then odds are good that many are false-positive alignments due to low complexity regions. That is why this cutoff option exists.