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

Variants returns multiple AA with 1.00 frequency #173

Open
shoulton-invivyd opened this issue Jan 31, 2024 · 2 comments
Open

Variants returns multiple AA with 1.00 frequency #173

shoulton-invivyd opened this issue Jan 31, 2024 · 2 comments

Comments

@shoulton-invivyd
Copy link

Describe the bug
When using ivar variants, multiple AA at the same position return with frequency 1.0. After looking at the nucleotides, it looks like there are 2 nucleotide mutations in a row, and rather than returning one AA mutation that comes form those two nucleotide mutations, I get two AA mutations that both have a frequency of 1.

To Reproduce
samtools mpileup -aa -A -d 0 -B -Q 0 --reference [<reference-fasta] <input.bam> | ivar variants -p [-r ] [-g GFF file]

Expected behavior
For example, at nucleotide position 22895 I get a G -> C mutation, and at nucleotide position 22896 I get a T -> C mutation. This should give me a REF_CODON of GTT and an ALT_CODON of CCT at POS_AA 445. Instead, I get 2 Mutations at 445, one with ALT_CODON CTT and one with ALT_CODON GCT. This gave me an L at 445 and an A at 445, both with frequencies of 1, but I think it should be only P with a frequency of 1. (Screenshot included for easier viewing of this)

Screenshots
(Apologies for the wonky screenshot, it was too wide for one screenshot)
Example Position

Additional context
Add any other context about the problem here.

@shoulton-invivyd shoulton-invivyd changed the title Variants returns multiple AA with 1.00 frequency and calling wrong AA Variants returns multiple AA with 1.00 frequency Jan 31, 2024
@cmaceves
Copy link
Collaborator

cmaceves commented Feb 3, 2024

Hey! Thanks for bringing this up, we're actually having internal discussions about this currently. While it's on the agenda, this might a fix for further in the future due to the way we call variants.

@shoulton-invivyd
Copy link
Author

Great, thank you for the update!

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants