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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Workflow to assign consensus cell types to ScPCA samples #977
Workflow to assign consensus cell types to ScPCA samples #977
Changes from 15 commits
79a3e51
84094b5
73d9498
2a2f514
82632b7
f3b6f78
7965691
e36f4c7
3f9183d
39b162d
2bbacc3
6f4f1a0
6b7c342
939103f
bcb16a5
965e445
d7b93ed
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This seems like the correct solution (for now at least).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Are there any cases where the ontology maps to more than one fine label? I feel like this is the case, which would result in duplicate rows when joining.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
No. The ontology and fine label are 1:1. I checked this by making sure the length of the unique values in this data frame are equivalent and equal to the number of rows in the dataframe. Also from the celldex vignette:
This tells me that the
label.fine
are the names associated with the ontology IDs in the cell type ontology. I checked a few of these manually and they match up.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I read the last sentence a bit differently: they map to Cell Ontology but that does not mean that every fine label has a distinct ontology label.
In the case of Blueprint, it turns out that this is true, but it is not always; the HumanPrimaryCellAtlas data has more fine labels than ontologies.
So I guess this is fine, but I guess I'm not sure what the value of it is? If we are just getting an alternative to the ontology label with a different naming convention, do we need it at all?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Perhaps the better approach here is to directly map the ontology ids to the name associated with them ourselves and remove the
blueprint_annotation_fine
column all together. I think I'll go ahead and do this but in the script that creates the consensus reference to begin with and not here. I'll file a new issue and new PR to address this before we actually run this on all ScPCA samples.