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

Using FACETS output as GISTIC 2.0 input #84

Closed
andyjslee opened this issue May 25, 2018 · 4 comments
Closed

Using FACETS output as GISTIC 2.0 input #84

andyjslee opened this issue May 25, 2018 · 4 comments

Comments

@andyjslee
Copy link

I would like to use FACETS output as GISTIC 2.0 input. Based on my reading of the comments in the Issues section of this Github repository, it seems that I can generate each seg.cn value (ftp://ftp.broadinstitute.org/pub/GISTIC2.0/GISTICDocumentation_standalone.htm) by the following ways:

Method 1: just use cnlr.median value
Method 2:
raw.copy.number = 2*2^(cnlr.median - diplogR)
seg.cn = log2(raw.copy.number) - 1

Which is the correct way of doing it?

Lastly, what is the best way to generate the markers file?

Thank you for your time and help!

@alexpenson
Copy link
Member

I wouldn't use Method 2, if you want to adjust for the diploid log ratio, use cnlr.median - diplogR.
A third method is to use the log tcn values, which corresponds to also adjusting for the purity.

The markers are the input SNPs.

@veseshan
Copy link
Collaborator

Yes "cnlr.median - dipLogR" is the log(total copy number) unadjusted for purity which is what you want.

@andyjslee
Copy link
Author

Thank you!

@HenrikBengtsson
Copy link
Contributor

Yes "cnlr.median - dipLogR" is the log(total copy number) unadjusted for purity which is what you want.

@veseshan , I'm late to the game, but AFAIU, GISTIC 2.0 is not invariant to purity and doesn't make any attempts to estimate or adjust for it. Because of this, wouldn't you want to use a log(TCN) that is adjusted for purity as input to GISTIC 2.0?

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

No branches or pull requests

4 participants