You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Hi,
I am still struggling to understand which normalization procedure would make sense for WES versus WGS, both from your previous discussions, and also from the documentation that goes with the deconstructSigs R package. According to the package docs: " For exome data, the 'exome2genome' method is appropriate for the signatures included in this package. For whole genome data, use the 'default' method to obtain consistent results.". From the deconstructSigs GitHub page it is however stated that "For exome data, the default method is appropriate for the signatures included in this package.". I am using the 'signatures.cosmic' as the set of known signatures.
best,
Sigve
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi,
I am still struggling to understand which normalization procedure would make sense for WES versus WGS, both from your previous discussions, and also from the documentation that goes with the deconstructSigs R package. According to the package docs: " For exome data, the 'exome2genome' method is appropriate for the signatures included in this package. For whole genome data, use the 'default' method to obtain consistent results.". From the deconstructSigs GitHub page it is however stated that "For exome data, the default method is appropriate for the signatures included in this package.". I am using the 'signatures.cosmic' as the set of known signatures.
best,
Sigve
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: