Dear all,
if I run decontx (version 1.10.0) as
sce <- decontX(sce, batch=batch, z=labels, background=background)
I get:
Wed Mar 9 13:35:46 2022 .. 14 cells in the background matrix were removed as they were found in the filtered matrix.
--------------------------------------------------
Starting DecontX
--------------------------------------------------
Wed Mar 9 13:35:47 2022 .. Analyzing cells in batch 'LX058'
Wed Mar 9 13:36:24 2022 .... Generating UMAP
Found more than one class "dist" in cache; using the first, from namespace 'BiocGenerics'
Also defined by 'spam'
Found more than one class "dist" in cache; using the first, from namespace 'BiocGenerics'
Also defined by 'spam'
Found more than one class "dist" in cache; using the first, from namespace 'BiocGenerics'
Also defined by 'spam'
Wed Mar 9 13:37:52 2022 .... Estimating contamination
Error in decontXLogLik(counts = counts, z = z, phi = phi, eta = eta, theta = theta, :
The number of rows in 'eta' must be equal to the number of rows in 'counts'.
I think I specified everything in the right format:
> dim(background)
[1] 18554 7373
> dim(srat)
[1] 18554 7373
> identical(rownames(srat), rownames(background))
[1] TRUE
> is(background)
[1] "SingleCellExperiment" "RangedSummarizedExperiment" "SummarizedExperiment" "RectangularData" "Vector" "Annotated" "vector_OR_Vector"
PS:
I'm confused, when running decontx with a z-argument as per the above, I would have thought that no clustering is performed (since I supply that myself), so UMAP would not be needed, rigth? Yet I do see umap being run. Is that deliberate?
Dear all,
if I run decontx (version 1.10.0) as
I get:
I think I specified everything in the right format:
PS:
I'm confused, when running decontx with a z-argument as per the above, I would have thought that no clustering is performed (since I supply that myself), so UMAP would not be needed, rigth? Yet I do see umap being run. Is that deliberate?