Last updated: 2021-01-14

Checks: 1 1

Knit directory: esoph-micro-cancer-workflow/

This reproducible R Markdown analysis was created with workflowr (version 1.6.2). The Checks tab describes the reproducibility checks that were applied when the results were created. The Past versions tab lists the development history.

R Markdown file: uncommitted changes

The R Markdown file has unstaged changes. To know which version of the R Markdown file created these results, you’ll want to first commit it to the Git repo. If you’re still working on the analysis, you can ignore this warning. When you’re finished, you can run wflow_publish to commit the R Markdown file and build the HTML.

Repository version: 1d24c1f

Great! You are using Git for version control. Tracking code development and connecting the code version to the results is critical for reproducibility.

The results in this page were generated with repository version 1d24c1f. See the Past versions tab to see a history of the changes made to the R Markdown and HTML files.

Note that you need to be careful to ensure that all relevant files for the analysis have been committed to Git prior to generating the results (you can use wflow_publish or wflow_git_commit). workflowr only checks the R Markdown file, but you know if there are other scripts or data files that it depends on. Below is the status of the Git repository when the results were generated: 


Ignored files:
    Ignored:    .Rhistory
    Ignored:    .Rproj.user/
    Ignored:    data/

Untracked files:
    Untracked:  analysis/data-check-for-RNAscope.Rmd
    Untracked:  analysis/results-question-1.Rmd
    Untracked:  analysis/results-question-2.Rmd
    Untracked:  code/barrets-stacked-plot.Rmd

Unstaged changes:
    Modified:   analysis/index.Rmd
    Modified:   analysis/test-of-replication.Rmd

Note that any generated files, e.g. HTML, png, CSS, etc., are not included in this status report because it is ok for generated content to have uncommitted changes.

These are the previous versions of the repository in which changes were made to the R Markdown (analysis/index.Rmd) and HTML (docs/index.html) files. If you’ve configured a remote Git repository (see ?wflow_git_remote), click on the hyperlinks in the table below to view the files as they were in that past version.

File Version Author Date Message
Rmd 1d24c1f noah-padgett 2020-12-17 make waterfall-plots
html 1d24c1f noah-padgett 2020-12-17 make waterfall-plots
Rmd cf91029 noah-padgett 2020-12-02 updated analyses
html cf91029 noah-padgett 2020-12-02 updated analyses
Rmd 9937a7e noah-padgett 2020-11-05 new abundance data results
html 9937a7e noah-padgett 2020-11-05 new abundance data results
Rmd e41080d noah-padgett 2020-10-22 updated cleaning and ids data
html e41080d noah-padgett 2020-10-22 updated cleaning and ids data
html aaf0192 noah-padgett 2020-09-24 Build site.
Rmd ec3d151 noah-padgett 2020-09-24 updated processing files
Rmd 0159b72 noah-padgett 2020-09-23 initial commit
html 0159b72 noah-padgett 2020-09-23 initial commit

Welcome to our research website.

Data Pre-Processing

*NCI-UMD Data Process

*TCGA Data Process

*Sample IDs with Abundances

*Testing replication

*Waterfall Plots

*RNAscope test

Specific Questions for Update

Q1: is there a taxonomic signature shared between the barrett’s samples?

*Results Question 1

Q2: What is the abundance of F. nucleatum and/or Fusobacterium between these samples? - same samples as above

*Results Question 2

Q3: Is fuso associated with tumor stage in either data set? Does X bacteria predict stage? Multivariable w/ age, sex, BMI, history of Barrett’s

Add to this analysis: Fusobacterium nucleatum

Streptococcus sanguinis

Campylobacter concisus

Prevotella spp.

Same questions but using PICRUSt and HUMAnN data - Alison