You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
We've been using methyldackel for the analysis of our EM-seq libraries and I've noticed a bit of an odd behaviour from methyldackel. Specifically, when I specify different regions of inclusion (i.e. bed file A and bed file B, where file B should be a subset of file A), methyldackel returns slightly different regions in the final bedGraph files. In some cases a CpG regions not present in the bedGraph generated with -l fileA seems to be present in the bedGraph generated with -l fileB. I'm using the following parameters:
varFrac = 0.5
OppDepth = 10
minCov = 10
OT = 6,140,6,140
OB = 5,143,5,143
-l fileA/fileB
(OT/OB boundaries have been empirically defined using Methyldackel mbias).
Any idea as to why this is?
Thank you so much in advance fr your help!
Monica
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi,
We've been using methyldackel for the analysis of our EM-seq libraries and I've noticed a bit of an odd behaviour from methyldackel. Specifically, when I specify different regions of inclusion (i.e. bed file A and bed file B, where file B should be a subset of file A), methyldackel returns slightly different regions in the final bedGraph files. In some cases a CpG regions not present in the bedGraph generated with
-l fileA
seems to be present in the bedGraph generated with-l fileB
. I'm using the following parameters:(OT/OB boundaries have been empirically defined using Methyldackel mbias).
Any idea as to why this is?
Thank you so much in advance fr your help!
Monica
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: