Fix BoLA A19 sample attribution - #421
Merged
Merged
Conversation
Coverage Report for CI Build 33868178861Coverage remained the same at 83.005%Details
Uncovered ChangesNo uncovered changes found. Coverage Regressions8 previously-covered lines in 1 file lost coverage.
Coverage Stats
💛 - Coveralls |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
BoLA-2*016:01 BoLA-6*014:02BoLA-6*014:01peptide predictions as exact, predicted observation restrictionsPrimary-source resolution
Results 3.2 of Connelley/Sheldrake 2022 and the independent Vasoya et al. A19 definition identify A19 as
BoLA-2*016:01plusBoLA-6*014:02. However, Connelley Table 3 and Supplementary Data 2.1 assign the three retained peptides toBoLA-6*014:01by prediction. The supplement contains 23*014:01predictions, all in 2824TP runs, and no*014:02predictions.IEDB faithfully retained the paper's three final-table predictions, so this is not an upstream IEDB ingestion defect and no upstream issue was filed. The published source-level discrepancy remains explicit in the curation note and issue discussion; this PR represents both facts without declaring the alleles equivalent.
Verification
./format.sh./lint.sh./test.sh— 1,190 passed, one expected warningpytest -q tests/test_build_smoke.py— 2 passedBota-6*014:01,exact, andpredicted, each attributed to 2824TPsample_ploidy_audit()— clean corpus-wideCloses #414