User Tools

Site Tools


4dn:phase1:data_analysis:dawg-meeting-notes-20170518

This is an old revision of the document!


DAWG Meeting Notes 20170518

(Burak: I did not keep detailed minutes; Here are a bunch of notes I scribbled. Feel free to edit. See Slides for figures.)

Bottomline:

  • Different callers give very different results.
  • Callers vary by sizes of domain called and number vs. sequencing depth.

Jennifer Cremins:

  • Different classes of callers may need to be considered separately
  • Different tools have parameters that allow studying different length scales. A fair comparison needs to sweep parameters.

Erez:\__

  • With 10M or so reads, I don't think you have power to call TADs. So, the calls (reproducible as they may be) may not be accurate calls.
  • Using the 3Billion deep biological replicate from Rao et al would be more appropriate.
  • We should study consistency vs. read depth (compared to the deepest sample)
  • A visual inspection would be valuable (we could use juicer 2D format for different TADs)

Different enzymes or different papers also give very different results. Jakkard index of 0-0.2 depending on the tool.

  • (even mboI vs hindIII)
  • also IMR90 Rao vs Jin
4dn/phase1/data_analysis/dawg-meeting-notes-20170518.1600883147.txt.gz · Last modified: 2025/04/22 16:21 (external edit)