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

checking expected strand merge behavior for CG-mC #35

Open
chooliu opened this issue Mar 21, 2023 · 0 comments
Open

checking expected strand merge behavior for CG-mC #35

chooliu opened this issue Mar 21, 2023 · 0 comments

Comments

@chooliu
Copy link

chooliu commented Mar 21, 2023

Hi Hanqing:

Hope you're well!

I was using extract-allc to merge CG counts across strands on version 1.0.8 of allcools. I encountered the following and wanted to check if this was the expected behavior / if you had any recommendations.

Example command:

allcools extract-allc --allc_path $allcin --output_prefix $allcout \
   --mc_contexts CGN --chrom_size_path $refchromsizes --strandness merge

Example region in the output .allc across different samples:

Sample1.allc.tsv.gz
chr22   10525685        -       CGA     2       2       1
chr22   10525686        +       CGG     1       1       1
Sample2.allc.tsv.gz
chr22   10525684        +       CGC     1       1       1
chr22   10525686        +       CGG     1       1       1
Sample3.allc.tsv.gz
chr22   10525684        +       CGC     0       1       1
chr22   10525686        +       CGG     1       1       1
Sample4.allc.tsv.gz
chr22   10525684        +       CGC     1       1       1
chr22   10525686        +       CGG     2       2       1
Sample5.allc.tsv.gz
chr22   10525684        +       CGC     0       3       1
chr22   10525686        +       CGG     1       3       1
Sample6.allc.tsv.gz
chr22   10525685        -       CGA     2       2       1
chr22   10525686        +       CGG     1       1       1

The ultimate goal might be to compare, for example, methylation at that "...84" position across samples. Can't say for certain because I don't have the original alignments, but I wonder if Sample1 and Sample6 may just have happened to have coverage at position 85 but not 84.

Was hoping to check with you if (1) this is the expected output, or if I ran something incorrectly here. More generally, is it (2) more intuitive to make it so strand-merged output is always relative to the cytosine on the reference + strand? If so, not sure if it requires a major code change or a user could just normalize the files by calculating CorrectPos = Pos - 1 when Strand == "-" after extract-allc.

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

1 participant