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

are these results sensible? #63

Open
avilella opened this issue Jun 22, 2017 · 3 comments
Open

are these results sensible? #63

avilella opened this issue Jun 22, 2017 · 3 comments

Comments

@avilella
Copy link

avilella commented Jun 22, 2017

I am trying NucleoATAC on datasets of a lab workflow similar to ATAC-seq but not quite, and I am wondering if the results I am getting make sense. Some samples have a decent looking VMat plot, e.g.:

ceg56-102-5pc_s5_l00 bml grch38 karyo deduplicated natc vmat

Some others look a bit more flat/discontinuous:

ceg56-102-2pc_s2_l00 bml grch38 karyo deduplicated natc vmat

The model plots for the nice looking ones seem good to me:

screen shot 2017-06-22 at 10 39 27

Does this look good? Anything I should play around with or change?

@AliciaSchep
Copy link
Contributor

NucleoATAC is pretty specifically targeted towards ATAC-seq data. In the paper, we also showed it could be used for MNase, but that required using a V-plot learned from Mnase (default NucleoATAC one is from ATAC) data and also did not use the sequence bias model for ATAC (which NucleoATAC uses by default); additionally only the cross-correlation analysis was performed for MNase, and not an occupancy calculation. For a protocol with a different enzyme, I would not expect the V-plot to look the same as for ATAC-seq. NucleoATAC uses a V-plot learned from ATAC-seq as starting point, and adjusts based on fragment size of sample; doing so only makes sense if sample is also ATAC-seq. It also looks like the modelling of the fragment size did not work at all, as it doesn't seem like your sample has a mixture of NFR and nucleosome reads, as is the case for ATAC-seq.

In general, while an approach similar to what is used in NucleoATAC may be effective with your kind of data, using NucleoATAC is probably not appropriate 🙁

@avilella
Copy link
Author

avilella commented Oct 5, 2017

Hi @AliciaSchep , thanks for your reply a few months ago.

I have seen a bit of activity in the codebase and I wonder if now is a good time to bring up this ticket issue again.
From your reply above, it seems like starting with MNase-like data similar to the one we have, would require quite a lot of tweaking in the training of NucleoATAC and then running it for a given dataset.
Is this something I would be able to try following instructions available somewhere?
If this is an insurmountable amount of work, would you be able to recommend me any similar tools to NucleoATAC for my MNase-like datasets that would give me a per-position score combining read depth + insert size + nucleosome positioning information?

Thanks

@AliciaSchep
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @avilella I don't have any detailed instructions for applying NucleoATAC to MNase. As for alternative methods, I'd suggest checking out the method in https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5094857/ Haven't tried it out, but it seemed really interesting when I read the paper

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

2 participants