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

add --save_merged_fastq for merging technical repeats to fetchngs #95

Open
ojziff opened this issue Jun 7, 2022 · 5 comments
Open

add --save_merged_fastq for merging technical repeats to fetchngs #95

ojziff opened this issue Jun 7, 2022 · 5 comments
Labels
enhancement Improvement for existing functionality

Comments

@ojziff
Copy link

ojziff commented Jun 7, 2022

Description of feature

Hi nfcore/fetchngs team,

It would be awesome to add --save_merged_fastq for merging technical repeats to fetchngs. Would be very useful for downstream programs that cant deal with technical repeats.

Often easy to identify technical repeats from GEO because although technical repeats each have unique run_accession they share the same experiment_alias.

Many thanks,
Oliver

@ojziff ojziff added the enhancement Improvement for existing functionality label Jun 7, 2022
@Midnighter
Copy link
Contributor

@jfy133 I think we have working code for this in funcscan or taxprofiler already, right?

@jfy133
Copy link
Member

jfy133 commented Jun 7, 2022

@drpatelh
Copy link
Member

drpatelh commented Jun 7, 2022

True origins from rnaseq here!

Just need to figure out how we report the ids in this case after merging i.e. if this parameter is provided do we name files relative to experiment id.

@jfy133
Copy link
Member

jfy133 commented Jun 7, 2022

Maaaan do we need subworkflows to stop reinventing the wheel ;)

@Midnighter
Copy link
Contributor

Now that we have subworkflows, is this already tackled, should we tackle this?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement Improvement for existing functionality
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants