Skip to content

Workaround in case raw fastqs are gone and new contrasts are needed. #48

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

Open
tovahmarkowitz opened this issue Oct 18, 2024 · 3 comments
Assignees
Labels
long-issue meta-issue relating to many particular issues question Further information is requested

Comments

@tovahmarkowitz
Copy link
Collaborator

Goal: to make it possible to run new contrasts without using the chrom-seek run command (so as to avoid needing the raw fastqs)

Plan:
Have a script that takes in the current config.json, a new peakcall file, and a new contrast file and produce an updated config.json so that a user can just run the kickoff script without involving the chrom-seek run command

@rroutsong
Copy link
Collaborator

Are you basically asking for a run-mode that starts at peak bed files?

So input bed files and get the same outputs from the respective pipelines (chip, atac, cfchip, cutnrun)?

@tovahmarkowitz
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Hi Ryan,

The point here is that there are plenty of times where we want to run new contrasts months/years after the original analysis and to save space we've blown away the raw fastq folder, but left the remainder of the folder intact. The idea would be to basically have it be able to start with the Q5DD bam (or tagAlign) and try to propagate from there as needed.

The wrapper script around kickoff.sh (which also updates config.json) currently checks if the raw fastqs exist. So the idea is to have a script that can update the config.json to allow us to directly use kickoff.sh without requiring the wrapper.

Tovah

@rroutsong
Copy link
Collaborator

We can add some logic where-by if you list bams in chrome-seek run --input ..., instead of the traditional .fastq[.gz]?, then we pick up each individual pipeline mode from that point. Does this accomplish what you want?

@rroutsong rroutsong added the long-issue meta-issue relating to many particular issues label Mar 17, 2025
@rroutsong rroutsong added the question Further information is requested label Apr 1, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
long-issue meta-issue relating to many particular issues question Further information is requested
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants