Closed lldelisle closed 5 years ago
Hi Lucille,
That is strange. I would expected that the UMAP plots won't look the same between the R and Python implementations but the anchor scores shouldn't change. Can you try downloading pbmc_10k_v3.rds
again? It might be possible you're working with an older version of that file. Also, the vignettes were built using this latest docker image (https://hub.docker.com/r/satijalab/seurat/tags) if you want to see if that works for you.
Hi,
I downloaded pbmc_10k_v3.rds
which indeed had been updated. However, when I rerun the commands with the new rds, the scores were exactly the same.
I was wondering if you had the markdown source for the vignette to check and by any chance, the transfer.anchors
dataset to check if the problem is to find the anchors or to transfer the data.
Many thanks,
Lucille
Here's a link to download the RMD source. You may have to alter the paths but hopefully knitting it from scratch will work.
I feel very stupid. I used Homo_sapiens.GRCh38.82.gtf
instead of Homo_sapiens.GRCh37.82.gtf
(hg38 instead of hg19)...
Maybe you could add the link to the gtf (ftp://ftp.ensembl.org/pub/grch37/release-82/gtf/homo_sapiens/Homo_sapiens.GRCh37.82.gtf.gz) in the vignette to avoid this error.
Thanks for your time and really sorry.
Hi, I was very interested in your last Cell paper and I wanted to present it in a Journal Club. I am trying to reproduce the vignette for the atac-seq integration. I downloaded all data following the links and the gtf from ensembl. I ran the following commands:
Unfortunately, when I ran the umap on ATAC-Seq I got a segmentation fault. So, I used the python version as you suggested. The UMAP is quite different from expected: UMAP_both_before_anchor.pdf When, I looked at the prediction scores, they were much worse than in your vignette: prediction_score.pdf The UMAP with annotation is not really as expected. Especially, there is no pDC... UMAP_both_withAnnot.pdf
I probably forgot something...
Thanks for your help,
Lucille