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
While investigating the proActiv results for my sample dataset I came across the fact that many genes do not have a "Major" promoter, yet they tend to have multiple Minor promoters.
This was a bit unexpected as example workflow states the following (emphasis mine):
Promoters are also categorized into three classes. Promoters with activity < 0.25 are classified as inactive, while the most active promoters of each gene are classified as major promoters. Promoters active at lower levels are classified as minor promoters.
I now realise that this is related to the other statement described in limitations section:
proActiv will not provide promoter activity estimates for promoters which are not uniquely identifiable from splice junctions (single exon transcripts, promoters which overlap with internal exons).
Which makes sense. Looking at the source code, I believe this limitation is implemented as internalPromoter column in the output of proActiv.
In the actual implementation, specifically these lines, the "Major/Minor" classification is assigned before filtering out the internal promoters though.
In cases where an internalPromoter has higher activity than any non internal promoter, this would result this internal promoter being assigned the Major tag in the code. This assignment would be overwritten with NA immediately, but no other promoter being selected as Major leaving only Minor promoters and NAs.
Is this expected?
Shouldn't one of the otherwise Minor promoters that are not internalPromoter be assigned the Major label in these cases?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi again,
While investigating the
proActiv
results for my sample dataset I came across the fact that many genes do not have a "Major" promoter, yet they tend to have multiple Minor promoters.This was a bit unexpected as example workflow states the following (emphasis mine):
I now realise that this is related to the other statement described in limitations section:
Which makes sense. Looking at the source code, I believe this limitation is implemented as
internalPromoter
column in the output ofproActiv
.In the actual implementation, specifically these lines, the "Major/Minor" classification is assigned before filtering out the internal promoters though.
In cases where an
internalPromoter
has higher activity than any non internal promoter, this would result this internal promoter being assigned theMajor
tag in the code. This assignment would be overwritten withNA
immediately, but no other promoter being selected asMajor
leaving onlyMinor
promoters andNA
s.Minor
promoters that are notinternalPromoter
be assigned theMajor
label in these cases?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: