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
It may be worth testing whether corrections to the pairwise distances could be employed as described in https://gitlab.pasteur.fr/GIPhy/JolyTree, as we are now observing core Hamming distances >0.1; as an initial test, it could be employed in the tree visualisation, but may even be helpful in resolving within strain/between strain distances.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Sorry if I was unclear - rather than correcting for false positive matches, it would be a correction for multiple substitutions occurring at the same site - this should not change small distances, but would increase larger distances (which are systematically underestimated), which might help separate within & between strain distances where Hamming distances are large. But at a simpler level, it might improve the phylogenies.
It may be worth testing whether corrections to the pairwise distances could be employed as described in https://gitlab.pasteur.fr/GIPhy/JolyTree, as we are now observing core Hamming distances >0.1; as an initial test, it could be employed in the tree visualisation, but may even be helpful in resolving within strain/between strain distances.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: