-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
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
poscon negcon selection experiment by Chloe #3
Comments
Transfection threshold selection:
Replicate correlations
Table of values all doses combinedTable
Table of values per dose (a very small subset remained)Table
UMAPsposcon negcon (protein channel)poscon - negcon (protein channel)poscon - negcon (nonprotein channel) |
Including untransfected population level profiles
Positive Controls (ALK and IMPDH1 , 6 uL)Negative Controls (6 uL)
|
Table of numbers for all doses:Positive Controls:plots
Negative Controls:Table
|
My Observations:Positive controls:
Negative controls:
|
@AnneCarpenter the context of this experiment is selection of positive and negative controls based on what we recommended in #1 |
There are un-transduced, empty wells where cells should not have survived selection in columns 19-24. Sorry if that was unclear. Also how are you calling cells 'untransfected'? Is that based on low GFP intensity? All wells (except col19-24) were transduced with GFP and puro resistance. Therefore, following selection, all cells should be transduced. Cells with low GFP intensity in this screen should then reflect low protein stability. |
Thanks for the note @renochlo . The preprocessed CellProfiler single cell extracted features I have access to are for row A to P and columns 1 to 18. Also, I usually start with the metadata notes to decide on analysis choices and there were no notes on controls for this experiment. For transfection efficacy, I followed the our routine for this analysis which is first detecting transfected cells (based on DsRed or protein channel - this time the name was GFP in the feature names) and limit the computational scoring in the protein channel to the transfected cells. Are you saying that for this batch we consider all cells to be transducted and we want to include all in the analysis? |
I see, I'll be sure to include that in the future then. The plan moving forward is to include one control (4x wells/plate) that will not be transduced and therefore all cells should round up/undergo apoptosis. And that's correct - all cells should be treated as transduced and therefore included. |
With the assumption mentioned above there is not much analysis to do on data, negcon doesn't have replicate. For the subset of data with replicates, below are the replicate correlation curves. The replicate correlation with the transfected untrasfected assumption was stronger which means a potential relationship between protein abundance and phenotype strength. Table of numbers for all doses and variants in the experiment:columns: Table
Positive Controls - dose 6:Table
Negative Controls - dose 6:
|
Notes from Chloe's emails:
Email on Aug 19, 2022:
Email on Sep 15, 2022:
Regarding the PosCons, we’d like to select either IMPDH1 or ALK as our reference allele,
plus two of their respective variants (one which shows strong morphological shifts/localization patterns,
and one that’s subtle). For NegCons, we can only select 4 to include in our screen –
I’ll leave it up to you guys which 4 best suit your needs.
You can disregard all wells that are not labelled either PosCon or NegCon for this screen.
And please keep in mind each quadrant received a varying dose of viral supernatant.
The amount I settled on for our final pipeline is 6 uL, so perhaps you want to pay attention to the wells which received a vTitre = 6.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: