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

TMT6 quantification using pipeline command does not quantify correct channels #330

Closed
fstein opened this issue Mar 16, 2022 · 3 comments
Closed
Assignees
Labels
bug Something isn't working help wanted Extra attention is needed

Comments

@fstein
Copy link

fstein commented Mar 16, 2022

Hello,

I am using the pipeline command of philosopher as well as the philosopher.yml file for the quantification of TMT experiments. Everything works as expected. However, when setting the plex parameter to 6, it quantifies the wrong TMT channels.
For labeling, I used the labels 126, 127N, 128C, 129N, 130C and 131N. When quantifying these labels by setting plex to 11, everything works as expected. However, when setting plex to 6, channels 128C and 129N are empty. Is it possible that channels 128N instead of 128C and 129C instead of 129N are quantified? Because they are empty indeed.

Here is how my annotation file looks like:
126 channel_126
127N channel_127N
128C channel_128C
129N channel_129N
130C channel_130C
131N channel_131N

Thanks a lot for looking into this.

Best,
Frank

PS: I am using the latest version of FragPipe, philosopher and MSFragger

@prvst prvst self-assigned this Mar 16, 2022
@prvst prvst added the help wanted Extra attention is needed label Mar 16, 2022
@prvst
Copy link
Collaborator

prvst commented Mar 16, 2022

Are the channels empty in all tables?

@prvst prvst added the bug Something isn't working label Mar 16, 2022
@prvst
Copy link
Collaborator

prvst commented Mar 16, 2022

I actually found the issue, and you were right. We introduced a typo in the channel names and swapped a couple of them. For now please use the tmt10 for outputting the values, and the fix will be available in the soon-to-be-released version. Thanks for finding and reporting that.

Fixed. Added to v4.2.1

@prvst prvst closed this as completed Mar 16, 2022
@fstein
Copy link
Author

fstein commented Mar 16, 2022

Great, that you found the issue. Thanks a lot for looking into this.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working help wanted Extra attention is needed
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants