-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 10
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
No genotype calls for well-covered locus #25
Comments
Hello, Thanks for bringing up the question! The most recent version (0.7.0) of trgt contains some advanced parameters that can be tweaked to investigate the lack of coverage. If you run it with verbose option (
If you are losing reads at the "long flanks" step, I'd suggest trying to tweak the
I'd suggest rerunning with Hopefully those can shed light on the lack of coverage, but otherwise I'd love to reiterate either based on the verbose outputs you get or, if needed, looking at the BAM files that are causing issues. |
Hi, Thank you for the reply! I ran it with the --verbose flag and am not getting the additional DEBUG details you outlined above. |
@jlac can you try instead adding three |
That worked! Thank you! |
Hi,
I am trying to genotype TRs at the FXN locus and am getting strange results for some samples where the genotypes are not called at all. I know in a previous thread this was attributed to inadequate coverage, but in the attached plot you can see good coverage across several samples, but CloneA receives a call and CloneB does not.
I am wondering if it would be possible to improve the TRGT outputs to give some information about why a particular location wasn't genotyped? Or alternatively, if all sites can be genotyped but sites that don't meet minimum thresholds are not marked as PASS. Without these types of info it's almost impossible to understand why a particular sample can be genotyped while another cannot.
Thank you!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: