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

DSL1: Add possibility to use MapDamage for damage estimation #1020

Closed
TCLamnidis opened this issue Aug 14, 2023 · 0 comments · Fixed by #1032
Closed

DSL1: Add possibility to use MapDamage for damage estimation #1020

TCLamnidis opened this issue Aug 14, 2023 · 0 comments · Fixed by #1032
Assignees
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@TCLamnidis
Copy link
Collaborator

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe

DamageProfiler does not have an option to limit the amount of reads used for damage estimation. With really large BAM files, the amount of time and memory required to get a damage estimate becomes unrealistic, when the estimate is likely quite accurate already from 10k reads onwards.

Describe the solution you'd like

It would be good to include MapDamage2 as an alternative option for damage calculation, since it includes an option to limit the number of reads used. Current implementation of MapDamage2 in nf-core/eager only runs if the user has requested BAM rescaling. Would be nice to have a quick way of getting damage plots without needing to do the time-consuming rescaling step.
Results form the stat estimation can also be provided to the rescaling step to speed that up if a user decides to do both.

Describe alternatives you've considered

It is possible to use PMDtools as an alternative atm, but that is slower than either alternative, and can fail unexpectedly at times.

Additional context

Integrative-Transcriptomics/DamageProfiler#59
Integrative-Transcriptomics/DamageProfiler#58
Sadly, even if these were to be fixed, newer versions of Damageprofiler cannot be used because of Java requirement clashes with gatk 3.5, so fixing these issues there would only fix the behaviour of the pipeline from 3.0+

@TCLamnidis TCLamnidis added the enhancement New feature or request label Aug 14, 2023
@TCLamnidis TCLamnidis self-assigned this Aug 15, 2023
@TCLamnidis TCLamnidis mentioned this issue Aug 18, 2023
11 tasks
@TCLamnidis TCLamnidis linked a pull request Aug 23, 2023 that will close this issue
11 tasks
@TCLamnidis TCLamnidis removed a link to a pull request Nov 3, 2023
11 tasks
@TCLamnidis TCLamnidis linked a pull request Nov 3, 2023 that will close this issue
11 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

1 participant