[Assessment] Ensure no strand-bias issues from using UMI-collapsed reads in TNscope #1438
Labels
Assessment
Investigation before a user-story can be made
Milestone
Description
As we are planning to start using the UMIs in the standard TGA workflow which creates singletons out of read-pairs when the mates are overlapping, it is important to ensure that strand-bias filtering in TNscope is not an issue.
I think that at the moment if there are multiple read-pairs for a UMI group then it will decide the final strandedness of the UMI-collapsed read to be the most common strand of the original reads. This should theoretically mean that we would on average have the same strand-representation in the final collapsed bam as before which would be nice.
However, the reads are singletons, and it could be that TNscope doesn't handle them properly with regards to strandedness. I believe I had seen something like that before when doing work on this issue: #1336
So we just need to understand properly how strandedness is handled in TNscope downstream of having UMI-collapsed bamfiles before we can be safe in using it in the TGA workflow.
Suggested approach
No response
Criteria
No response
Origin
No response
Anything else?
No response
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: