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

too much CNV detected #2

Open
lmanchon opened this issue Oct 24, 2023 · 6 comments
Open

too much CNV detected #2

lmanchon opened this issue Oct 24, 2023 · 6 comments

Comments

@lmanchon
Copy link

--Hi,

i have tested your tool and i obtain too much CNV, with GATK pipeline or CNVkit i obtain ~ 15 CNV whereas with Cobalt i have ~ 130 CNV. I don't know why ,i have used default parameters maybe i need to adjust some parameters.

best

@brendanofallon
Copy link
Collaborator

Hi there, this can happen for a couple reasons. First, it might be that the background samples used to generate the model aren't a great fit for the query sample (for instance, maybe they had different depths or hyb capture conditions). Second, as you mentioned it could be that the default parameters aren't quite right. For instance, the 'a' and 'b' params could be a bit too high (higher values favor sensitivity, but generate more calls). Reducing a and b to smaller values will probably reduce the total number of calls.

@lmanchon
Copy link
Author

Can I suggest you take a look at my input files(my_background_depths.bed & my_sample.coverage.bed) to see if you have any parameter ideas to modify ?

@brendanofallon
Copy link
Collaborator

A good first bet is to try setting the 'a' and 'b' params to something lower than the default, try running the calling step with ' -a 0.002 -b 0.002' (the default is 0.005), that should help improve precision

@lmanchon
Copy link
Author

I tested it and got 14 CNV less.

@brendanofallon
Copy link
Collaborator

A good idea would be to experiment with different values for a and b to find the ones that give you the right balance between sensitivity and precision. Sounds like both 0.002 and 0.005 are too high, try a few smaller values. You can also try increasing the '--min-qual' argument from the default value of 0.8 to eliminate more quality calls. If the first try doesn't look quite right, then you might need to try a few different values to find one that works well

@lmanchon
Copy link
Author

ok i'm going to do that. Thank you --

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

2 participants