Last updated: 2019-01-11

workflowr checks: (Click a bullet for more information)

• ✔ R Markdown file: up-to-date

  Great! Since the R Markdown file has been committed to the Git repository, you know the exact version of the code that produced these results.

• ✔ Repository version: b17230c

  Great! You are using Git for version control. Tracking code development and connecting the code version to the results is critical for reproducibility. The version displayed above was the version of the Git repository at the time these results were generated.
  
  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:    .sos/
      Ignored:    analysis/.sos/
      Ignored:    dsc/.sos/
      Ignored:    output/
  
  Untracked files:
      Untracked:  analysis/sim_power_berge_pbmc_results.Rmd
      Untracked:  dsc/benchmark.sh
      Untracked:  dsc/code/zinbwaveZinger/
      Untracked:  dsc/config.yaml
      Untracked:  dsc/data/cis_gene_expression.txt
      Untracked:  dsc/data/pbmc.rds
      Untracked:  dsc/data/pbmc_counts.rds
      Untracked:  dsc/data/pbmc_counts_sub.rds
      Untracked:  dsc/data/pbmc_counts_sub_celltype.rds
      Untracked:  dsc/data/pbmc_simdata_berge.rds
      Untracked:  dsc/data/samples-id-for-paper.txt
      Untracked:  dsc/modules/get_sim_data.dsc
      Untracked:  dsc/modules/process_data.R
      Untracked:  dsc/modules/process_data.dsc
      Untracked:  dsc/modules/sim_data.R
      Untracked:  dsc/modules/sim_data.dsc
      Untracked:  dsc/monitor.py
      Untracked:  dsc/monitor_output/
      Untracked:  dsc/power_berge.dsc
      Untracked:  dsc/type1_berge.dsc
      Untracked:  dsc/type1_simple.dsc
  
  Unstaged changes:
      Modified:   dsc/benchmark.dsc
      Modified:   dsc/data/README.md
      Modified:   dsc/modules/get_data.R
      Modified:   dsc/modules/get_data.dsc
  
  

  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.

Expand here to see past versions:

File	Version	Author	Date	Message
Rmd	b17230c	Joyce Hsiao	2019-01-11	update TOC
html	75c78c9	jhsiao999	2018-11-16	Build site.
Rmd	afbb687	jhsiao999	2018-11-16	add DESeq2
html	5dd99de	jhsiao999	2018-11-15	Build site.
Rmd	c3707b4	jhsiao999	2018-11-15	prelim results on two-sample tests
html	a85bfe7	jhsiao999	2018-11-15	add back htmls
Rmd	0cc76ea	jhsiao999	2018-11-15	first commit
Rmd	2dd4a18	jhsiao999	2018-11-15	Start workflowr project.

---

Project website for benchmarking methods for single-cell DE methods.

• Investigate Type I error control in simulated null datasets
  • Using single-cell real dataset (10X PBMC data), and consider two scenarios:
    • Case 1: Replicate results in Berge et al., 2018.
      
    • Case 2: Assess type I error as a function of sample size. (45 and 300)
    • Note that data used in Case 1 was curated as described in Van den Berge et al., 2018, see here for steps.
• Power evaluation
  • Using Van den Berge et al. 2018 simulated data, generated here using their code
• Data curation procedure is described here.
  • 10x Genomics PBMC dataset.

---

This reproducible R Markdown analysis was created with workflowr 1.1.1

---