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
gTrack has typically plotted ranges with a different definition of widths than GRanges. e.g. a range of [4,5] is width 1 in gTrack and width 2 in GRanges. This can cause strange behavior and odd looking plots when looking at small genomes where single base-pairs make a difference.
I have changed the code so that gTrack now defines width the same as GRanges. This means that the x-axis had to be shifted by 0.5 as below, and GRanges-width 1 ranges now plot to "cover" that base:
gTrack has typically plotted ranges with a different definition of widths than GRanges. e.g. a range of [4,5] is width 1 in gTrack and width 2 in GRanges. This can cause strange behavior and odd looking plots when looking at small genomes where single base-pairs make a difference.
I have changed the code so that gTrack now defines width the same as GRanges. This means that the x-axis had to be shifted by 0.5 as below, and GRanges-width 1 ranges now plot to "cover" that base:
mdat <- matrix(sample(10, 4, replace=TRUE), ncol=2, nrow=2)
mdat[upper.tri(mdat)] <- mdat[lower.tri(mdat)]
gr <- GRanges(c(1,1), IRanges(c(5,6), width=1), strand=c("+","-"))
gr <- GRanges(1, IRanges(c(5), width=1), strand=c("+"))
Doing some debugging on this fix, will check in soon.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: