==== DAWG Meeting Notes 20170518 ====

|~~TABLE_CELL_WRAP_START~~<WRAP>
(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

</WRAP>~~TABLE_CELL_WRAP_STOP~~|