Skip to content
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

Homogenize trio vs hic architecture #197

Open
skoren opened this issue Sep 28, 2023 · 1 comment
Open

Homogenize trio vs hic architecture #197

skoren opened this issue Sep 28, 2023 · 1 comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Milestone

Comments

@skoren
Copy link
Member

skoren commented Sep 28, 2023

Currently, trio requires users to build homopolymer-compressed databases and we run one round of consensus after rukki resolution and coloring. In contrast, with Hi-C data, we run consensus, map Hi-C data, then run rukki and another round of consensus. This is similar to the architecture for GFAse as well.

This should be universal, perhaps always use uncompressed post-consensus sequence? This would allow users to build normal meryl databases rather than HPC ones, simplifying confusion. Additionally, output file locations differ between HiC and trio (e.g. trio = 6-layout*/*scfmap vs hic = 8-*/6-layout*/*scfmap). These should be promoted to top level to be the same in both cases.

@skoren skoren converted this from a draft issue Sep 28, 2023
@skoren skoren added this to the v2.0 milestone Sep 28, 2023
@skoren skoren added the enhancement New feature or request label Sep 28, 2023
@skoren skoren modified the milestones: v2.0, v2.1 Jan 16, 2024
@skoren skoren modified the milestones: v2.1, v2.3 Oct 21, 2024
@skoren
Copy link
Member Author

skoren commented Oct 21, 2024

The scfmap files have been promoted and the final outputs are synchronized. However, we still need to homogenize the rest of the pipeline.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
Status: No status
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant