[DOCKTESTERS] Sanger 2º validation (DO52140): Very small dicrepancies

[Francis Ouellette]

Are the differences the same or different then the last time you ran this?
Was this Sanger workflow run on the same infrastructure as the last
one you did?

@bffo



On Dec 27, 2016, at 08:24, Miguel Vazquez <miguel.vazquez at cnio.es<mailto:miguel.vazquez at cnio.es>> wrote:

Dear all,

The test for the Sanger workflow on the second sample is complete. The results are posted below.

In brief, somatic indels and SV are a 100% match (803986 and 6 respectively matches) there are small differences in somatic.snv.mnv (+5 -7 with 87234 matches) and somatic.cnv (-2 and 36 matches)

Best regards

Report
~~~~~~

Comparison of somatic.cnv for DO52140 using Sanger
---
Common: 36
Extra: 0
Missing: 2
    - Example: 10:11767915:T:<CNV>,10:11779907:G:<CNV>


Comparison of somatic.indel for DO52140 using Sanger
---
Common: 803986
Extra: 0
Missing: 0


Comparison of somatic.snv.mnv for DO52140 using Sanger
---
Common: 87234
Extra: 5
    - Example: 1:23719098:A:G,12:43715930:T:A,20:4058335:T:A
Missing: 7
    - Example: 10:6881937:A:T,1:148579866:A:G,11:9271589:T:A


Comparison of somatic.sv<http://somatic.sv/> for DO52140 using Sanger
---
Common: 6
Extra: 0
Missing: 0

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.icgc.org/mailman/private/docktesters/attachments/20161227/e62f42ab/attachment.html>