Timeline for Why should we use the NA12878 dataset for benchmarking?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
25 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 3, 2017 at 8:45 | vote | accept | SmallChess | ||
| Apr 1, 2017 at 18:37 | history | edited | mgkrebbs | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
clarification, spelling
|
| Mar 31, 2017 at 12:44 | history | edited | SmallChess | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Mar 31, 2017 at 11:08 | history | edited | SmallChess | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Mar 31, 2017 at 7:52 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackBiology/status/847718352030019588 | ||
| Mar 31, 2017 at 0:08 | history | edited | SmallChess | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 3 characters in body
|
| Mar 30, 2017 at 19:41 | comment | added | Chris♦ | @Artem Great. Then why it is so complicated to add this information to the question? | |
| Mar 30, 2017 at 18:30 | comment | added | Artem | @Chris, NA12878 is a 'known' reference genome in the variant/structural genomics world. The question really is what was this particular standard choosen over any other and it is valid. The name is the name though. | |
| Mar 30, 2017 at 18:26 | answer | added | Artem | timeline score: 13 | |
| Mar 30, 2017 at 15:36 | comment | added | Ram RS | This might be helpful: NA12878 is part of the Illumina Platinum Genomes dataset. illumina.com/platinumgenomes.html | |
| Mar 30, 2017 at 12:35 | comment | added | AliceD♦ | @StudentT jumping in here - you shouldn't start ranting, but be glad folks try to help. Also understand a little introduction is always nice. This site is not only about you you know. The best questions are relevant and interesting for the community at large. A short introductory sentence on NA12878 (what is it, why do you use it) may provide useful information for others such that they can actually learn from the question. | |
| Mar 30, 2017 at 12:14 | comment | added | Chris♦ | @StudentT It's not about closing, this is something I would have done if I think a mod intervention is necessary. It is about improving the question and understandability, nothing else. | |
| Mar 30, 2017 at 11:20 | comment | added | terdon | It's not about closing, it's about making the question easier to understand. And nobody said it was inappropriate. The only thing inappropriate here is your reaction to a helpful suggestion telling you how to improve your question and increase your chances of getting an answer. You took it as criticism and started arguing when all you needed to do is provide a link as I just did. That way, people can click on it and see that you are referring to a DNA sequencing sample and can look up information about it. | |
| Mar 30, 2017 at 11:18 | history | edited | terdon | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 82 characters in body
|
| Mar 30, 2017 at 11:12 | history | edited | SmallChess | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Mar 30, 2017 at 11:11 | comment | added | SmallChess | @terdon Chris is a mod, he could have just closed the question if he really believed it was inappropriate. Furthermore, a user who doesn't know what NA12878 will not be able to benefit from it. The question will benefit NA12878 users, and we know there're many. I did introduce NA12878 in the very first sentence. I ask because I don't understand NA12878 very well. I can't summarise something I don't really know. What else do you want? | |
| Mar 30, 2017 at 11:08 | comment | added | terdon | No it isn't. I work with NA12878 daily, so I happen to recognize it, but that doesn't mean that everyone who could answer your question would know the code on sight. I have been working in genomics for almost 10 years now but didn't know what NA12878 was until last year when I started doing variant calling. More to the point, if another user, let alone a mod, suggests that your question could be clearer, why don't you just clarify instead of arguing? Obviously it seems clear to you, but equally obviously, it isn't so clear to everyone. | |
| Mar 30, 2017 at 6:03 | comment | added | SmallChess | @Chris I still disagree. This is like explaining DNA for any question related to genetics. Prior knowledge is assumed and required for most questions in this site. Anyway, I did give a brief introduction on what NA12878 is in my first sentence. The title and the question could be a potential useful resource for anyone googling NA128278. | |
| Mar 30, 2017 at 5:59 | comment | added | Chris♦ | First: This has nothing to do with me being a mod. Then: It is well known to people from the field, but questions/answers here are expected to stand on their own without reading further literature. | |
| Mar 30, 2017 at 5:53 | comment | added | SmallChess | @Chris I know you are a mod, but I disagree. NA12878 is a very well known human sample, covered in many high quality papers. My question is about why it is a good benchmarking data set. | |
| Mar 30, 2017 at 5:52 | comment | added | Chris♦ | Still, your answer might be closed as unclear. | |
| Mar 30, 2017 at 5:51 | comment | added | SmallChess | @Chris NA12878 is the name. It is not abbreviation of anything. | |
| Mar 30, 2017 at 5:50 | comment | added | Chris♦ | It would be a good idea to explain abbreviations you use, so other people could understand them as well. | |
| Mar 30, 2017 at 3:47 | history | edited | SmallChess | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 39 characters in body
|
| Mar 30, 2017 at 3:16 | history | asked | SmallChess | CC BY-SA 3.0 |