Open Manikgarg opened 3 years ago
@Manikgarg Hope everything is going well with you. I usually only use net.up
and net.down1
.
When we set datasets = "WH", then we will return the signaling network inferred based on the data from WH
. However, when we set datasets = "IFNL", we will return the signaling network inferred based on the data from IFNL
. Thus I think it might be better to define it by USER.
Thanks @sqjin ! I am in a similar situation and I have decided to merge two cellchat objects at a time to do the Part III of analysis. I noticed that in identifying the upregulated pathways,
receptor.logFC
is marked asNULL
but wouldn't the signaling be reduced if the receptor has negative LFC? Sorry if I am missing something! With this assumption, I was thinking of modify the code to:Do you think this makes sense? I am also a bit confused about when we want to calculate the downregulated pathways in "WH", why don't we simply flip the signs for logFC while keeping the dataset same:
net.down1 <- subsetCommunication(cellchat, net = net, datasets = "WH",ligand.logFC = -0.1, receptor.logFC = -0.1)
or change the dataset but shortlist the upregulated pathways in IFNL (i.e. with positive logFC):net.down1 <- subsetCommunication(cellchat, net = net, datasets = "IFNL",ligand.logFC = 0.1, receptor.logFC = 0.1)
Why do we switch to non-positive dataset as well as invert the sign to negative?:net.down1 <- subsetCommunication(cellchat, net = net, datasets = "IFNL",ligand.logFC = -0.1, receptor.logFC = -0.1)
Wouldn't it shortlist the downregulated pathways in IFNL that would ideally be upregulated in WH?Hope I managed to explain it properly. Any help much appreciated!! Thanks!
Originally posted by @Manikgarg in https://github.com/sqjin/CellChat/issues/238#issuecomment-907606738