Bioinformatics Advance Access originally published online on February 26, 2010
Bioinformatics 2010 26(8):1029-1035; doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btq092
“We define sequence map-ability at any location as the number of different reads of 36 bases that can be uniquely mapped to cover this location. Considering forward and reverse complement, sequence map-ability for any location is an integer in the range of [0 … 72].
To facilitate identifying unique matches, we also define a sequence commonness factor as the number of bases starting at any chromosomal position that are needed to define a unique location on the reference. Reference sequence commonness and sequence map-ability for every point in the reference are calculated and stored during the reference database construction process. Figure 1 shows the percentage of human genome with an equals or higher sequence commonness.”
I agree this is OK for a SNP caller that is designed for any genomes. But what makes SNP calling wrong is not uniqueness but the degeneracy factor which can be more devastating yet computationally more expensive.
Many people argued that Chinese education system is too rigid to produce creative graduates.
- “The Chinese educational system is terrible at producing workers with innovative skills for Chinese economy. It produces people who memorize existing facts rather than discovering new facts; who fish for existing solutions rather than coming up with new ones; who execute orders rather than inventing new ways of doing things. In other words they do not solve problems for their employers.”
Yasheng Huang, professor of political economy and international management at Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Continue Reading
The hub nation
“IMMIGRANTS benefit America because they study and work hard. That is the standard argument in favour of immigration, and it is correct…”
Process to become a legal residence in USA
Bad science: Global-warming deniers are a liability to the conservative cause
The group that is skeptical of the evidence of man-made global warming “comprises only 2% of the top 50 climate researchers as ranked by expertise (number of climate publications), 3% of researchers in the top 100, and 2.5% of the top 200, excluding researchers present in both groups … This result closely agrees with expert surveys, indicating that [about] 97% of self-identified actively publishing climate scientists agree with the tenets of [man-made global warming].”
How has this tiny 2-3% sliver of fringe opinion been reinvented as a perpetually “growing” share of the scientific community? Most climate-change deniers (or “skeptics,” or whatever term one prefers) tend to inhabit militantly right-wing blogs and other Internet echo chambers populated entirely by other deniers.
“Also, don’t forget that in Belgium you have a duty to vote. Although the government doesn’t fine you anymore if you don’t show up, 98 % of people cast a ballot even if 40 % of them have no interest.”