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

RFC: Should we migrate to fully-justified alignments? #222

Open
reece opened this issue Sep 10, 2019 · 4 comments
Open

RFC: Should we migrate to fully-justified alignments? #222

reece opened this issue Sep 10, 2019 · 4 comments
Labels
keep alive exempt issue from staleness checks

Comments

@reece
Copy link
Member

reece commented Sep 10, 2019

When aligning sequences with indels in repeat regions, the alignment is ambiguous. Most aligners implicitly right or left shuffled gaps, but this choice is arbitrary: the real region of ambiguity spans from the left extreme to the right extreme. The result is that it’s hard to know whether a particular region is within an ambiguity region.

Proposal: Based on work from NCBI, GA4GH adopted fully-justified normalization for the GA4GH VR specification.

Migrating UTA alignments to fully-justified would allow relatively simple tests for whether a variant overlaped a region of ambiguity.

@reece reece added the question Further information is requested label Sep 10, 2019
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Dec 1, 2023

This issue is stale because it has been open 30 days with no activity. Remove stale label or comment or this will be closed in 7 days.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the stale Issue is stale and subject to automatic closing label Dec 1, 2023
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Dec 9, 2023

This issue was closed because it has been stalled for 7 days with no activity.

@github-actions github-actions bot closed this as not planned Won't fix, can't repro, duplicate, stale Dec 9, 2023
@reece reece removed the question Further information is requested label Feb 19, 2024
@reece reece reopened this Feb 19, 2024
@reece reece added resurrected and removed stale Issue is stale and subject to automatic closing labels Feb 19, 2024
@reece
Copy link
Member Author

reece commented Feb 19, 2024

This issue was closed by stalebot. It has been reopened to give more time for community review. See biocommons coding guidelines for stale issue and pull request policies. This resurrection is expected to be a one-time event.

Copy link

This issue is stale because it has been open 90 days with no activity. Remove stale label or comment or this will be closed in 7 days.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the stale Issue is stale and subject to automatic closing label May 20, 2024
@jsstevenson jsstevenson added keep alive exempt issue from staleness checks and removed stale Issue is stale and subject to automatic closing resurrected labels May 20, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
keep alive exempt issue from staleness checks
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants