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

[FEATURE] Call/Confirm SVs with read depth information #179

Open
Irallia opened this issue Nov 15, 2021 · 4 comments
Open

[FEATURE] Call/Confirm SVs with read depth information #179

Irallia opened this issue Nov 15, 2021 · 4 comments
Assignees

Comments

@Irallia
Copy link
Collaborator

Irallia commented Nov 15, 2021

No description provided.

@joshuak94
Copy link
Collaborator

There are two ways I'm considering for the read depth:

  1. We calculate the read depth over the entire BAM file (maybe using a sliding window average), and then use the discrepancies to call breakends. This would occur in the variant detection stage.
  2. We feed in a vector of clusters for just insertions and deletions (since those are the only two which can be detected via read depth), and can then either support or not support the call. This would occur after the variant detection and clustering stages.

@Irallia
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Irallia commented May 18, 2022

Since we assume with 1 that our breakpoints are probably very fuzzy, I would prefer version 2.
But we should keep in mind, that there is the possibility of version 1, which we could doublecheck later. Question would be, are there lot of SVs just detected by read depth and how fuzzy are the breakpoints..

In addition to insertions and deletions, there are also duplications (which are basically insertions aswell).

@joshuak94
Copy link
Collaborator

I would say using just read depth would be not very accurate. But if you use it in combination with the other methods, then the fuzzy breakends don't matter too much since they'll be supported by things like split reads which have much more precision.

@Irallia
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Irallia commented May 23, 2022

Okay, then I would say we go with version 1 and then see if our F1 score in the benchmarks suffers or benefits. 👍

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