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
It would be convenient to produce an additional variants.annotated.tsv from the final VCF that is produced for pvacseq.
This could be much the same as the table that already produced but add RNA counts by adding these fields to the genotype_fields: RAF and RAD
The report would be generated in a two step process involving: GATK VariantsToTable and VAtools (vep-annotation-reporter).
This new step could mirror and/or reused the existing YAML inputs to decide which information to put in the report but have the report generated later in the pipeline instead of inside detect-variants:
If the GATK variants to table tools works even if one of these is missing, then the same exact lists could be reused on the detect variants VCF and the final pVACtools VCF.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
It would be convenient to produce an additional variants.annotated.tsv from the final VCF that is produced for pvacseq.
This could be much the same as the table that already produced but add RNA counts by adding these fields to the genotype_fields:
RAF
andRAD
The report would be generated in a two step process involving: GATK VariantsToTable and VAtools (vep-annotation-reporter).
This new step could mirror and/or reused the existing YAML inputs to decide which information to put in the report but have the report generated later in the pipeline instead of inside detect-variants:
immuno.vep_to_table_fields
immuno.variants_to_table_fields
immuno.variants_to_table_genotype_fields
If the GATK variants to table tools works even if one of these is missing, then the same exact lists could be reused on the detect variants VCF and the final pVACtools VCF.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: