Skip to content
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

LINCS L1000 Chemical Perturbations #68

Open
wangjiawen2013 opened this issue Feb 21, 2023 · 5 comments
Open

LINCS L1000 Chemical Perturbations #68

wangjiawen2013 opened this issue Feb 21, 2023 · 5 comments

Comments

@wangjiawen2013
Copy link

wangjiawen2013 commented Feb 21, 2023

Hi,
Thanks for your work.
I queried some up and down-regulated genes on sigcom web, there were some results from different data source, and here are two of them:
image

Could you tell what's the difference between "LINCS L1000 Chemical Perturbations (2021)" and "LINCS L1000 Chemical Perturbations Consensus Signatures" highlighted by the red rectangle? Besides, the search results table of the first one includes details such as dose, tissue, cell line, time points, while the latter lacks of these details, where to find them ?

@AviMaayan
Copy link
Contributor

@wangjiawen2013 thank you for your question... the "LINCS L1000 Chemical Perturbations Consensus Signatures" is our attempt to combine the signatures across all conditions into a consensus up and down genes for each drug. So it is the same data, but in the latter, you have one entry for each drug. This is useful for various use cases.

@wangjiawen2013
Copy link
Author

Thanks,
This is also what I guessed. I found consensus signatures worked better for my query. Does "the signatures across all conditions" include different cell lines and drug doses and time point ?

@AviMaayan
Copy link
Contributor

Yes.

@wangjiawen2013
Copy link
Author

wangjiawen2013 commented Feb 22, 2023

Hi,
sorry to trouble you again. Though it worked better using consensus sigatures, I still don't know the reason. Why the consensus signature performed better ? what is the use cases it suitable for ?

@AviMaayan
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @wangjiawen2013 it likely worked better because your input is from cells that are not profiled with the L1000 data. So the consensus captures better the cell agnostic effects of the preturbagen.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants