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

Getting started with DFE for MusMus #1556

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 4, 2025

Conversation

peterdfields
Copy link
Contributor

@igronau Just getting the pull started for MusMus. Here I've implemented the base DFE for CDS from here. Note that there is also a DFE for CNE and UTR type genomic sequence but I wanted to make sure the CDS is parameterized correctly first.

add line to init importing dfe

fix neutral,non-neutral props.

try shorter dfe model name
@petrelharp
Copy link
Contributor

I've rebased this; we'll see what needs to be done?

Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 23, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 99.84%. Comparing base (d6e0406) to head (84e8710).
Report is 6 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #1556   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   99.84%   99.84%           
=======================================
  Files         130      131    +1     
  Lines        4416     4431   +15     
  Branches      608      608           
=======================================
+ Hits         4409     4424   +15     
  Misses          3        3           
  Partials        4        4           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@petrelharp
Copy link
Contributor

Okay - looking at the paper, I've got a few questions: should we be (also?) implementing a DFE with positive selection? And, should we be worried this paper from 2021 is still a preprint?

@peterdfields
Copy link
Contributor Author

@petrelharp I think we could implement a couple of different scenarios, I just wanted to make sure this simplest scenario, or at least a scenario that is present for a few other species in the catalog, passed spec before trying others. An alternative citation that could be included as well because it includes some of the same/similar simulations is here.

@petrelharp
Copy link
Contributor

Sounds good. If the intention is to implement more than one from the same paper, perhaps the name needs additional information? Like I don't know maybe GammaDeleteriousCDS_B21? Hm, but actually this is the "just gamma" version, so maybe this one doesn't need anything extra.

I checked with Tom Booker, btw, who says we're good to use this - there's no issue with this part of the analysis.

@petrelharp
Copy link
Contributor

Okay, I think this looks good! Mind opening a QC issue, @peterdfields?

@petrelharp petrelharp merged commit a011bf1 into popsim-consortium:main Jan 4, 2025
11 checks passed
@peterdfields
Copy link
Contributor Author

@petrelharp Sure, I can open the QC issue.

Regarding the other scenarios, I should open another branch for these?

I definitely figured we were on strong footing for the parameter values/details given Tom had worked them up :)

@petrelharp
Copy link
Contributor

Great, thanks! And yes - if you'd like to add more, open a new PR. (Should be easy now?)

@petrelharp
Copy link
Contributor

I started this in #1649, so it wouldn't be forgotten - could you provide more info there, please?

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.

2 participants