Closed kgaonkar6 closed 3 years ago
Thanks @kgaonkar6 - can you show the GOI plots? I don't think the top N gene plots are as useful here.
Also, I will say no to a stepwise review - we shouldn't call any non-pass variants.
Is deep deletion filter ok? I reverted back to use "loss" as Del in the last commit to make it comparable to master
For plotting
Del
- we tend to use deep deletions in these plots, so that is what we should do here and can specify in the manuscript.
My interpretation of this comment is that analyses/oncoprint-landscape/01-map-to-sample_id.R
needs to be revised before this goes in - is that correct?
My interpretation of this comment is that
analyses/oncoprint-landscape/01-map-to-sample_id.R
needs to be revised before this goes in - is that correct?
yes, I misunderstood some offline discussion with @kgaonkar6 thinking this current version already had that update.
Sorry about the confusion!
In the last commit status "deep deletion" is labeled as Del
and "amplification" as Amp
primary_only_hgat_goi_oncoprint.png in this PR with "deep deletion" is labeled as Del
and "amplification" as Amp
and manta FILTER==PASS
Comparing here to master primary_only_hgat_goi_oncoprint.png with status=="loss" as Del
and "amplification" as Amp
@jharenza also pointed out TTYH1 amplifications that needed to be verified. I've spot checked the TTYH1 in the 2 EMTR samples and they are supported by both cnvkit and freec so we consider these as high confidence calls :
> check_cnvkit %>% filter(gene_symbol=="TTYH1",status=="amplification")
# A tibble: 2 x 4
biospecimen_id gene_symbol copy_number_cnvkit status
<chr> <chr> <dbl> <chr>
1 BS_TE8QFF7T TTYH1 7 amplification
2 BS_69VS8PS1 TTYH1 7 amplification
> check_freec %>% filter(gene_symbol=="TTYH1",status=="amplification")
# A tibble: 2 x 4
biospecimen_id gene_symbol copy_number_freec status
<chr> <chr> <dbl> <chr>
1 BS_K07KNTFY TTYH1 12 amplification
2 BS_TE8QFF7T TTYH1 8 amplification
Purpose/implementation Section
What scientific question is your analysis addressing?
Rerun with FILTER==PASS for manta calls used in
copy_number_consensus_call
What was your approach?
Rerun
What GitHub issue does your pull request address?
Add deep deletion status in https://github.com/AlexsLemonade/OpenPBTA-analysis/issues/1099 Update with manta FILTER==PASS https://github.com/AlexsLemonade/OpenPBTA-analysis/issues/1113
Directions for reviewers. Tell potential reviewers what kind of feedback you are soliciting.
Which areas should receive a particularly close look?
I have
deep deletion
andamplification
in the oncoprint. There seems to have been an issue with Varian_Classification update not going into master from #1088 so I've added back in this PR.Is there anything that you want to discuss further?
Is the analysis in a mature enough form that the resulting figure(s) and/or table(s) are ready for review?
Yes
Results
What types of results are included (e.g., table, figure)?
figures
What is your summary of the results?
Previous primary_only_hgat_goi_oncoprint.png with status=="loss" as Del and "amplification" as Amp
Current file primary_only_hgat_goi_oncoprint.png with status=="loss" as Del and "amplification" as Amp along with manta
FILTER==PASS
Reproducibility Checklist
Documentation Checklist
README
and it is up to date.analyses/README.md
and the entry is up to date.