You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I am running some different samples (RNA vs cfDNA) through somalier and one of them came out with a very low relatedness, even though 77 (out of 78) sites are IBS2:
I think that, even though there are a lot of heterozygote sites, they do not actually overlap (the reason why n=78). On the RNA data probably because of non-expressed genes, and on the cfDNA prob due to the low coverage.
According to somalier's paper, relatedness is calculated as:
However, in this case, even though one sample has 228 hets and the other 556, they only overlap on 78 snps. So, shouldn't the formula be a bit more like:
where hets_in_common_pos(i) stands for the number of hets in sample "i" among the positions shared ("n"). This change should have no effect when comparing the same type of seq (since the overlap should be quite high) and improve comparisons of different types of seq.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi,
I am running some different samples (RNA vs cfDNA) through
somalier
and one of them came out with a very low relatedness, even though 77 (out of 78) sites are IBS2:I think that, even though there are a lot of heterozygote sites, they do not actually overlap (the reason why n=78). On the RNA data probably because of non-expressed genes, and on the cfDNA prob due to the low coverage.
According to somalier's paper, relatedness is calculated as:
However, in this case, even though one sample has 228 hets and the other 556, they only overlap on 78 snps. So, shouldn't the formula be a bit more like:
where
hets_in_common_pos(i)
stands for the number of hets in sample "i" among the positions shared ("n"). This change should have no effect when comparing the same type of seq (since the overlap should be quite high) and improve comparisons of different types of seq.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: