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
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Oct 9, 2024. It is now read-only.
In the function backtrack_aggregateCalls, we are currently redefining the boundaries for consecutive CNVs that have different copy number variations but are merged due to their hidden state. This occurs especially with homodeletions and heterodeletions. Here, the boundaries for heterodeletions are extended to those of homodeletions, which results in two distinct calls. This suggests a scenario where a short heterodeletion on one allele might extend longer on the second allele, creating a common region that appears as a homodeletion.
Should we reconsider how we define and merge these boundaries to better capture the nuances of CNV events? This might help in accurately delineating distinct genomic alterations.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Sign up for freeto subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
In the function backtrack_aggregateCalls, we are currently redefining the boundaries for consecutive CNVs that have different copy number variations but are merged due to their hidden state. This occurs especially with homodeletions and heterodeletions. Here, the boundaries for heterodeletions are extended to those of homodeletions, which results in two distinct calls. This suggests a scenario where a short heterodeletion on one allele might extend longer on the second allele, creating a common region that appears as a homodeletion.
Should we reconsider how we define and merge these boundaries to better capture the nuances of CNV events? This might help in accurately delineating distinct genomic alterations.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: