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

Do we consider the run_comparison function as a gene centered? #24

Open
hakobyansiras opened this issue Aug 13, 2021 · 3 comments
Open
Assignees
Labels
question Further information is requested

Comments

@hakobyansiras
Copy link
Collaborator

To specify some details about the requirements of the dataset input file I would like to know if we consider the run_comparison function to work only for gene based comparisons.

@hakobyansiras hakobyansiras added the question Further information is requested label Aug 13, 2021
@cannin cannin self-assigned this Aug 13, 2021
@cannin
Copy link
Member

cannin commented Aug 13, 2021

Not sure if I understand. run_comparison was there before the summer and it should continue working as it was before. As seen from our publication, it worked on gene lists like the most variable genes or pathway gene lists. For now, we have only tested/used it on entries with HGNC gene symbols. But as long as there are similarly-named entries present for both tumor and cell lines in a numeric vector representation it should work.

@hakobyansiras
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I am writing documentation for the new comparison function (run_comparison_config_list). As it is also capable to run comparison for specified gene list I am wondering if I should write that input data entries should be the genes with HGNC names or to change the "gene_list" argument name to something general.

@cannin
Copy link
Member

cannin commented Aug 13, 2021

I see. Keep it as gene_list. For most cases, this will make sense. More advanced users may see this message or contact us.

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants