-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 10
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
SV annotation - merge order looses some translocation annotation #581
Comments
Was this related to the issue you posted on VEP some time ago? If so, could you ask VEP if they have made any progress or have a plan for implementing a solution? Otherwise we have to fix something in the meantime. |
I could ping them, but I’m not alone requesting updates to VEP SV. Without having any inside, my guess is that we should solve this ourselves for now. That’s what we opted for with FindSV way back when. Jesper and I talked to @jemten about this: should be no more than switching the order of merging and annotation of the SV VCFs. |
Ok, seems like this was finally merged in VEP 110! Shall we try to nudge the version and test? |
VEP annotation should precede merger of SV files. Caller VCFs (manta, TIDDIT) have separate (linked) entries for both ends of a translocation. While this may be redundant, VEP is not yet translocation aware, and fails to annotate one (the numerically higher chromosome) if applied after merge.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: