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
Hi,
I have a very fragmented tumor sample which has been segmented by various methods (FACETS, SCLUST, Battenberg) and i am using CNAqc to check its quality and potentially identify the best approach to analyze this genome.
My thoughts are that given the current segmentation I could use CNAqc to identify the segments that are more likely to be correct vs more likely to be wrong. Furthermore, I am hoping that if a sample fails I can get rerun it with different arguments through the same algorithms e.g. provide a different ploidy estimate etc.
I have noticed though that if I run the same cnaqc object through the analyze_peaks function multiple times I get different results.
For example
These samples fail because their purity correction is high (> 8%). However, in the instances where the samples PASS the purity correction is <2%.
Any advice on this?
Thanks
K
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi,
I have a very fragmented tumor sample which has been segmented by various methods (FACETS, SCLUST, Battenberg) and i am using CNAqc to check its quality and potentially identify the best approach to analyze this genome.
My thoughts are that given the current segmentation I could use CNAqc to identify the segments that are more likely to be correct vs more likely to be wrong. Furthermore, I am hoping that if a sample fails I can get rerun it with different arguments through the same algorithms e.g. provide a different ploidy estimate etc.
I have noticed though that if I run the same cnaqc object through the analyze_peaks function multiple times I get different results.
For example
Running:
I get
While
I get
These samples fail because their purity correction is high (> 8%). However, in the instances where the samples PASS the purity correction is <2%.
Any advice on this?
Thanks
K
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: