You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The ORF struct is normally defined with a location field that is of type UnitRange{Int64}. This has been used with the default step (i.e., 1) argument. So even if the strand field of ORF is - the start will always be determined by the "positive" strand range.
This is not an issue for the get_orfs_* methods since they use the following treatment:
The inverted range is, for instance, how negative stranded ORF are displayed in PHANOTATE outputs (c.f source code).
The things to reconsider are:
Are the other ORF applications using this convention as well?
Would revamping this bring some benefits to the performance?
The write methods should at least advertise this. However, judging by the previous test with IGV it is found to have only positive ranges at start and stop.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The
ORF
struct is normally defined with alocation
field that is of typeUnitRange{Int64}
. This has been used with the default step (i.e.,1
) argument. So even if thestrand
field ofORF
is-
the start will always be determined by the "positive" strand range.This is not an issue for the
get_orfs_*
methods since they use the following treatment:The inverted range is, for instance, how negative stranded ORF are displayed in PHANOTATE outputs (c.f source code).
The things to reconsider are:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: