You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Is it a good idea to QC features (genes) that are detected in only a small number of barcodes (cells)- i.e. features rarely detected across the population?
I can't recall seeing this QC'd in typical publications; however these features could complicate highly variable gene lists etc.
Their number is not small - the dataset in front of me (1,040 barcodes x 23,700 features; filtered according to the principles in chapter 6, plus others) contains 5,600 features that were detected in less than 10 barcodes.
If their QC is a good idea, we'd have to remove (or set to zero) these features from the count matrices (and possible re-normalize) - or can someone think of a better way?
Note this is different from filtering barcodes with very few features.
Keen to hear everyone's thoughts on the matter - thanks!
Please let me know if there's a better mechanism for discussion
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Question
... and prompt for discussion ;-)
Is it a good idea to QC features (genes) that are detected in only a small number of barcodes (cells)- i.e. features rarely detected across the population?
I can't recall seeing this QC'd in typical publications; however these features could complicate highly variable gene lists etc.
Their number is not small - the dataset in front of me (1,040 barcodes x 23,700 features; filtered according to the principles in chapter 6, plus others) contains 5,600 features that were detected in less than 10 barcodes.
If their QC is a good idea, we'd have to remove (or set to zero) these features from the count matrices (and possible re-normalize) - or can someone think of a better way?
Note this is different from filtering barcodes with very few features.
Keen to hear everyone's thoughts on the matter - thanks!
Please let me know if there's a better mechanism for discussion
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: