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

modification parsing: missing ")" and "]" #282

Open
mlocardpaulet opened this issue Apr 12, 2024 · 6 comments
Open

modification parsing: missing ")" and "]" #282

mlocardpaulet opened this issue Apr 12, 2024 · 6 comments

Comments

@mlocardpaulet
Copy link
Contributor

Describe the bug
The parsing of the modification and reporting in the intermediate table is not right (in the field precursor ion).

To Reproduce
Steps to reproduce the behavior:

  1. load a MQ evidence file
  2. Click on "parse and bench"

Expected behavior
the modifications in the following screenshot should be "[Oxidation (M)]"

Screenshots
image

Desktop (please complete the following information):

  • OS: MasOS Sonoma 14.2.1
  • Browser Chrome Version 123.0.6312.122 (Official Build) (arm64)
@RobbinBouwmeester
Copy link
Contributor

So, this is due to differences in how to format this, this is what it was in the "old" file format:

(ac)ADDIDIEAM(ox)LEAPYK

So best solution is when selecting a software tool we have two entries for MQ, with both formatting options.

@mlocardpaulet
Copy link
Contributor Author

mlocardpaulet commented May 7, 2024

I see, yes. This is a bit annoying!
How do you want to proceed?
Shall we:

  1. have several "MaxQuant" options in the drop-down menue of the upload: like "MaxQuant version 1.5 to 2.4" and "MaxQuant version 2.5 or above"
  2. make a more general "modification sequence format" dropdown menu that comes up after the workflow tool selection. This option is more flexible but means that the user has to check him/herself.
  3. check automatically what format the modified sequence is using, but not sure how easy/reliable this can be.
  4. or any other idea?

@RobbinBouwmeester
Copy link
Contributor

I think option one is the easiest. But the other options are definitely also possible.

@mlocardpaulet
Copy link
Contributor Author

Let's do that then.

@RobbinBouwmeester
Copy link
Contributor

Ok, I think I have a different better solution in mind, with a "greedy" regex. Will try this and keep you posted.

@RobbinBouwmeester
Copy link
Contributor

Could you check #299 @mlocardpaulet

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants