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

deconstructSig usage #7

Closed
ohofmann opened this issue May 30, 2017 · 5 comments
Closed

deconstructSig usage #7

ohofmann opened this issue May 30, 2017 · 5 comments

Comments

@ohofmann
Copy link

Hi,

done some more testing and seem to be running into odd mutational signatures that I did not expect. It seems that PCGR defaults to exome data (tri.counts.method = 'exome') which might be causing problems with WGS results. Any chance of making this configurable?

Best, Oliver

@sigven
Copy link
Owner

sigven commented May 30, 2017

Hi Oliver,
Very good point. This could be taken into account relatively easy, I am sure. A grant application is keeping me busy at the moment, so sorry for being a bit unresponsive. I will work with a new release asap, including support for allelic support etc.

best,
Sigve

@sigven
Copy link
Owner

sigven commented Jun 12, 2017

Hi Oliver,
Coming back to this matter. I am, as you, struggling a bit to understand which normalization would make sense for WES versus WGS, both from your previous correspondence, and also from the documentation that goes with the deconstructSigs R package. According to the package docs: " For exome data, the 'exome2genome' method is appropriate for the signatures included in this package. For whole genome data, use the 'default' method to obtain consistent results.". From the deconstructSigs GitHub page it is however stated that "For exome data, the default method is appropriate for the signatures included in this package.". Have you been able to reach a conclusion/recommendation here, based on your comprehensive empirical testing? Also with respect to the number of mutations needed. In order to make it properly configurable within PCGR, it would be valuable with your input.

@ohofmann
Copy link
Author

ohofmann commented Jun 13, 2017 via email

@sigven
Copy link
Owner

sigven commented Jun 13, 2017

Thanks, at least I'll notifiy the deconstructSigs authors about the contradictory info.

@sigven
Copy link
Owner

sigven commented Aug 4, 2017

Analysis of mutational signatures in PCGR 0.4.0 is made more configurable (user can specify trimer normalization and number of signatures in search space)

@sigven sigven closed this as completed Aug 4, 2017
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