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
The PCA in seaPiper can sometimes still look different than the one in the report.
The reason for this seems to be that in the report the n_most_varying paramter from the config is checked and variable genes are trimmed down to that number before calculating PCA (the default in the config file is 500):
mtx <- t(assay(RLD_BLIND))
vars <- sort(apply(mtx, 2, var), decreasing=TRUE)
sel <- names(vars)[vars > 1e-26]
if (config$report$snippet_parameters$Normalisation_QC$n_most_varying > 0)
sel <- sel[1:min(length(sel), config$report$snippet_parameters$Normalisation_QC$n_most_varying)]
pca <- prcomp(mtx[ , sel], scale.=TRUE)
The reports in seaPiper seem to skip this step, as the PCA there resembles the one created if this subsetting step is omitted:
PCA seapiper
PCA report, default config
PCA report, without config/subsetting
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The PCA in seaPiper can sometimes still look different than the one in the report.
The reason for this seems to be that in the report the
n_most_varying
paramter from the config is checked and variable genes are trimmed down to that number before calculating PCA (the default in the config file is 500):The reports in seaPiper seem to skip this step, as the PCA there resembles the one created if this subsetting step is omitted:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: