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

Labels Key in totalVI #1549

Open
StefanMDPhD opened this issue Jun 1, 2022 · 2 comments
Open

Labels Key in totalVI #1549

StefanMDPhD opened this issue Jun 1, 2022 · 2 comments

Comments

@StefanMDPhD
Copy link

I've written this a few times in the past, but I can't say this often enough: Thank you for sharing your excellent analysis software with the community!

I'm writing to inquire about the possibility of exposing the labels_key in the totalVI model.

My reason for coveting this feature is the following: I have CITE-seq data from cells for which I have some a priori information on coarse cell type, i.e. my libraries consist of two different cell types that I've sorted (via FACS) and labeled with hash tag olives before multiplexing them into a single library.

[Perhaps anecdotally] I notice that when I integrate several of these libraries via scVI, using batch and label keys, the boundary between the two cell types remain crisp. When I try this with totalVI, using batch key [and the additional CITE-seq data] there is more mixing between the [closely related] cell types.

Thanks in advance for considering this request.

@adamgayoso
Copy link
Member

Sorry I missed this, indeed this is something we would like to add but haven't gotten to yet.

@lior-ness
Copy link

I second @StefanMDPhD! Thank you for the effort you put in this excellent package.

Exposing labels_key in totalVI is a highly desired feature on my end as well. I hope it's a simple enough addition.
I too noticed that cell-type-aware-embedding clusters much better compared with using batch keys alone.

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

No branches or pull requests

4 participants