-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
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
Mass proficient extraction for NAS storage #342
Conversation
Check out this pull request on See visual diffs & provide feedback on Jupyter Notebooks. Powered by ReviewNB |
…in case missing FOVs different for both)
…ction in notebook 3b
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM!
Agreed, looks good! |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good. You should also confirm that the offsets are being handled correctly for mass extraction, since I remember some trickiness about the sign of the proficient and deficient extraction.
Should be straightforward to extract proficient, deficient, and the whole range, and make sure that proficient + deficient = combined
Proficient + deficient unfortunately does not equal combined via the current offset. For most channels, the vast majority of values (about 95-99%) match up, but some channels (ex. Noodle, Fe, Au) have little in common between proficient + deficient and combined. Other channels like H3K27me3 and H3K9ac are also a bit more problematic (70-79%). In terms of offset, I've been working with:
|
Need to test this PR on the next CIMAC/SPAIN runs before requesting a review. |
Per our meeting a few weeks ago, we'll be reverting the definition of deficient and proficient back to:
The long-term project would be for someone in the lab to granularly test each channel and see which ones need customized extraction ranges. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good, see below
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good. Just a comment about the setting the ranges.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Wild stuff!
What is the purpose of this PR?
Closes #327. Closes #322.
How did you implement your changes
See issue link.
Remaining issues
Need to test this on Christine's run next week.