Closed LTLA closed 8 years ago
Yes, re the first point I added this following a comment from Quin, but agree we don't need this. In hindsight Quin might simply have been making a comment not necessarily suggesting I include it! I binned it.
Agree with the other changes and have made them.
Why mention this? I don't think it's an important caveat (or at least, not one that should be mentioned at the start before you've talked up scater). In fact, I don't even think about read-level QC, other than removing reads with low MAPQ scores during counting. I think it's fairly obvious that scater's responsibilities start at the read counts, and anything before that is up to the user. I suggest taking out this bit, or moving it to a later point if you really feel it must be said.
A less clunky way to say it is:
Keep it simple; why not just:
Briefly mention of what the gene-level QC metrics are for. Suggest: