-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 8
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
Coverage of modekit pileup results does not match the coverage displayed on IGV #385
Comments
Hello @rania-o,
Modkit
For high-depth, you may want to increase the |
Hi @ArtRand , Thanks for your reply.
What do you mean here by "that's not the default behavior" ? Filtering out positions with 0% modified automatically by modkit ?
For the case where IGV shows less reads than modkit, actually I'm aware of this and I checked on IGV all the reads are displayed. For the other case, you are right. All the reads are considered as an alternate base. But the problem that I face is that I'm doubting about the modification to be a pseudoU since the signature of this modification is misbasecalling uridine as a cytosine T-->C, which is the case on IGV. But, I'm a bit surprised by the model not calling this base as a pseudoU, and instead calling an m6a even if the base in the reference is not an A.
|
Hello,
I used modkit pileup with a bam basecalled with dorado model [email protected] and called for m5C, m6a, pseudou and inosine.
I have two questions :
Thanks in advance for you reply,
Rania
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: