The content is too long, I have to cut it in two.
All the variants in my input VCF are biallelic. I did not perform any augmentation before calling, so I would expect that the output VCF should not contain any new POS or genotypes. However, in reality, the output VCF contains many multi-allelic variants. For instance, the variant mentioned in the previous example appears as a multi-allelic variant in sample C, whereas the input VCF indicates that it is biallelic.
sample C: NC_058080.1_1 59145 >89127697>89127735 ATAAATGGTAGAAAAATTGCAACAGGTTTTATTGAAAAAAAAACACTGGCTCAATTGGACATCACTATGATCATTTGCACTGGTATAAACGGTAGAAAAATTGCAACAGGTTTTTGAGAAACGGCAAAATTCCCAATTACATGTTCCCTGAATGCGGCAAAACTGTGCGCTGCTACTGATGCACTAAAATACACTTATTTGTGCATCTAAAATGTAGAAAAATTGCAACAGGTTTTAGGGAAACAGAAATGCACAATTGGACATCACCTGAGTGCATCCAAACTATACACTGTTATTGACGCACTTATAAATGGTAGAAAAATTGAAATAAGTTTTGAGAAACACCAAAATTTCAATAGGACGACCTCTGGGTGAAACAAAAATATACACTATTATGCTGCTGTTAATGCAGTAAAATATGATTATTGCACATATATAAAATTTTGAAAAATTGTAAGGCTGGCTTCTGTACAGTCTGTTGTCTTCTTAAGGATCTCTGTGCTGCAGTAGTCTGGACTAGGGCTCAGCTAAGGGGAGGCCTGCATGATTAGGGTTGGTTGTGAGGGTCAGGGAGGTTAGAGGTTAAGGGATTTGAATGTCTAGTAAAAGAGGGGGGGCATCGCATAGGAGAGGAGTTTGGGGGGCTATTTATGGGGGTGTCTTGTAGTGAGGGGTGCCATTTTGTGCACTGAGAAAAACTGGTAAGATGTCCCAGACACTTACCATCAATGATATGCTGGCTAGGCTAAGAGAGGCAGCGGCGGAGCGGGGCCATGAGTGGCTGAGCTCCCAGATGTCCGCCATATTGAGGGCTGAGGCAGCGGGTACGGTTAGCTCGCCTCCGGAAGGAAGACGGACATGGCTGGTACGGCCGCCCGCGCGCCTGAGTCCCAGTGAGACCCCCCGAGTTCGGCGCCGTGTCAGGAGCCCCTCCGGGGACCCTCCACCTCGGGGGAATGCAGGGCAGACTACATCCTCATCCTCCTGGCGTGGGAGGAATCCATGTGGCAGGCGTAACCCAGCGCAGGGCAGGAGGGCCCTCCCCTGCCCTCTCCGGTGAGCAGCGATGGATCGGGAGCGGCGGGATCCTTACCTTCTAGTGGGGTCAGGAGGCCTGCTCAGCGAGGGATGGACGGGAGGCATGTGGCACGCGAGG A,ATAAATGGTAGAAAAATTGCAACAGGTTTTATTGAAAAAAAAACACTGGCTCAATTGGACATCACTATGATCATTTGCACTGGTATAAACGGTAGAAAAATTGCAACAGGTTTTTGAGAAACGGCAAAATTCCCAATTACATGTTCCCTGAATGCGGCAAAACTGTGCGCTGCTACTGATGCACTAAAATACACTTATTTGTGCATCTAAAATGTAGAAAAATTGCAACAGGTTTTAGGGAAACAGAAATGCACAATTGGACATCACCTGAGTGCATCCAAACTATACACTGTTATTGACGCACTTATAAATGGTAGAAAAATTGAAATAAGTTTTGAGAAACACCAAAATTTCAATAGGACGACCTCTGGGTGAAACAAAAATATACACTATTATGCTGCTGTTAATGCAGTAAAATATGATTATTGCACATATATAAAATTTTGAAAAATTGTAAGGCTGGCTTCTGTACAGTCTGTTGTCTTCTTAAGGATCTCTGTGCTGCAGTAGTCTGGACTAGGGCTCAGCTAAGGGGAGGCCTGCATGATTAGGGTTGGTTGTGAGGGTCAGGGAGGTTAGAGGTTAAGGGATTTGAATGGTCTTGTAGTGAGGGGTGCCATTTTGTGCACTGAGAAAAACTGGTAAGATGTCCCAGACACTTACCATCAATGATATGCTGGCTAGGCTAAGAGAGGCAGCGGCGGAGCGGGGCCATGAGTGGCTGAGCTCCCAGATGTCCGCCATATTGAGGGCTGAGGCAGCGGGTACGGTTAGCTCGCCTCCGGAAGGAAGACGGACATGGCTGGTACGGCCGCCCGCGCGCCTGAGTCCCAGTGAGACCCCCCGAGTTCGGCGCCGTGTCAGGAGCCCCTCCGGGGACCCTCCACCTCGGGGGAATGCAGGGCAGACTACATCCTCATCCTCCTGGCGTGGGAGGAATCCATGTGGCAGGCGTAACCCAGCGCAGGGCAGGAGGGCCCTCCCCTGCCCTCTCCGGTGAGCAGCGATGGATCGGGAGCGGCGGGATCCTTACCTTCTAGTGGGGTCAGGAGGCCTGCTCAGCGAGGGATGGACGGGAGGCATGTGGCACGCGAGG 22.2838 PASS AT=>89127697>89127698>89127699>89127700>89127701>89127702>89127703>89127704>89127705>89127706>89127707>89127708>89127709>89127710>89127711>89127712>89127713>89127714>89127715>89127716>89127717>89127718>89127719>89127720>89127721>89127722>89127723>89127724>89127725>89127726>89127727>89127728>89127729>89127730>89127731>89127732>89127733>89127734>89127735,>89127697>89127735,>89127697>89127698>89127699>89127700>89127701>89127702>89127703>89127704>89127705>89127706>89127707>89127708>89127709>89127710>89127711>89127712>89127713>89127714>89127715>89127716>89127719>89127720>89127721>89127722>89127723>89127724>89127725>89127726>89127727>89127728>89127729>89127730>89127731>89127732>89127733>89127734>89127735;DP=7 GT:DP:AD:GL:GQ:GP:XD:MAD 1/2:7:1,1,5:-4.29935,-3.60807,-3.08519,-10.3865,-3.60807,-4.29935:6:-1.28391:12.2142:1Why is this happening? are these multiallelic reliable?
I would like to hear your opinion on whether to enable nested calling mode. Based on my understanding, using short-read data to call nested variants may increase the false positive rate (inaccurate calling). If my goal is to have the most accurate calling possible and I don't mind sacrificing the quantity of calls (some inside variants not being called), then I should not enable it.
Thanks for your attention.
Maxine