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

bamCompare --scaleFactor console info #590

Closed
dpryan79 opened this issue Sep 4, 2017 · 8 comments
Closed

bamCompare --scaleFactor console info #590

dpryan79 opened this issue Sep 4, 2017 · 8 comments
Assignees

Comments

@dpryan79
Copy link
Collaborator

dpryan79 commented Sep 4, 2017

I presume that "Normalization: depth" is still printed to the screen if one manually sets a --scaleFactor. A better method would be to just print whatever was specified by the user.

@dpryan79 dpryan79 added this to the 2.6.0 milestone Sep 4, 2017
@dpryan79 dpryan79 self-assigned this Sep 4, 2017
@vivekbhr
Copy link
Member

vivekbhr commented Sep 4, 2017

As far as I saw, the scale factors would be multiplied by the kept_reads/total_reads, which in absence of blacklist would be 1, so normalization: depth is not correct there as well..

@dpryan79
Copy link
Collaborator Author

dpryan79 commented Sep 4, 2017

I think in bamCompare the scale factors override the depth normalization rather than getting multiplied by it (I'm double checking this now). But if not I totally agree that this needs to be fixed too.

@dpryan79
Copy link
Collaborator Author

dpryan79 commented Sep 4, 2017

Actually, it seems that "Normalization: depth" will only be printed with bamCoverage. I'm not sure if the person who mentioned this on the mailing list mistook bamCoverage for bamCompare or not.

@dpryan79
Copy link
Collaborator Author

dpryan79 commented Sep 4, 2017

Gah, it's me who misread!

@dpryan79
Copy link
Collaborator Author

dpryan79 commented Sep 4, 2017

Hmm, it looks like "Normalization: none (signal scaled by percent alignment kept after filtering)" would be more appropriate. I added the current print out in #366, so I guess I can take the initiative to change it.

dpryan79 added a commit that referenced this issue Sep 4, 2017
@dpryan79
Copy link
Collaborator Author

dpryan79 commented Sep 4, 2017

@vivekbhr What's your opinion of the changed wording in this commit?

@vivekbhr
Copy link
Member

vivekbhr commented Sep 4, 2017

Sounds ok to me.. Can also write : signal scaled by the fraction of alignments kept after filtering

@dpryan79
Copy link
Collaborator Author

dpryan79 commented Sep 4, 2017

@vivekbhr Sounds good, changed and merged :)

@dpryan79 dpryan79 closed this as completed Sep 4, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants