Skip to content

Ap/sppid protid delim - #84

Draft
austinhpatton wants to merge 883 commits into
mainfrom
ap/sppid_protid_delim
Draft

Ap/sppid protid delim#84
austinhpatton wants to merge 883 commits into
mainfrom
ap/sppid_protid_delim

Conversation

@austinhpatton

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Okay, so as we briefly discussed, this is a (relatively) simple change to use an updated naming convention for protein IDs, made to be consistent with the snakemake preprocessing workflow.

Old convention was: Genus_species:proteinID

The colon got replaced by an underscore by orthofinder, which made splitting the species and protein ID more challenging.

Now, the convention is: Genus-species_proteinID

The changes I implemented here basically just parameterize the delimiter, making _ the default, but splitting the two identifiers using the parameter value within the annotation module.

I haven't actually tested it yet (hence the draft PR), but will make an updated version of the test dataset that follows this convention so that I can do so.

…ent sized sequences

Signed-off-by: Austin Patton <austin.patton@arcadiascience.com>
… or 25% of taxa.

Signed-off-by: Austin Patton <austin.patton@arcadiascience.com>
Signed-off-by: Austin Patton <austin.patton@arcadiascience.com>
@austinhpatton

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

Okay, so I've made a number of changes, and this now works as anticipated.

  1. I've made the naming of the sppid_protid_delim parameter consistent throughout
  2. The delimiter is provided as input to the cogeqc R script, which is then used to split the sequence headers - this works using either naming convention.

I've not yet added in a check at the onset of the workflow to make sure that the sequence headers are named properly, though I have included a check to make sure it's actually in the sequence IDs, and stop the workflow if it's not, printing a useful error message to output in this case. I think we can make these checks a fair bit more extensive, but doing something like this could be part of a larger effort to build in checks throughout the workflow.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants