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
Alignment with LOVD - Complex Variant Handling #328
Comments
@rklocke and @RSWilson1 , you will need to perform a git pull to get the updates I pushed last week. From @PeteCausey-Freeman |
Copy of LOVD result_v1.xlsx
@rklocke @RSWilson1, we can work through these but concentrate on the sub-categories you want to cover for now. @leicray, it might be worth you working through these. I will too then we can get together and compare notes |
Hi Pete,
Is this all caused by differences between the endpoints? Ideally, all endpoints would use the same syntax validation, I suppose? |
We will look into this as part of this issue. |
Another type of variant which will be easy to support loss / gain of methylation Examples in this paper https://clinicalepigeneticsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13148-018-0460-9 |
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Currently VariantValidator does not handle several complex variant types that the LOVD syntax checker can. These include, but are not limited to
Describe the solution you'd like
We need to at least be able to validate these variants syntactically. If possible, convert them into a simple form and return the syntactically correct variant description plus an updated Core description for use in publication and guidance about "supplementary secondary descriptions (i.e. particularly for expanded repeats where the core description ought to be a del or a dup, supplemented by an expanded repeat description)
Additional context
The current dev version of VV produces the following when provided with a truth set from @loeswerkman
For reference, the input file was
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: