tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6334453475526523597.post5453274861779561808..comments2023-11-07T10:31:25.370+00:00Comments on CoreGenomics: Single cell extravaganzaJames@cancerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02825715598810395734noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6334453475526523597.post-65783909699404412462014-07-04T10:04:05.605+01:002014-07-04T10:04:05.605+01:00I love your blog. This is a cool site and I wanted...I love your blog. This is a cool site and I wanted to post a little note to tell you, good job! Best wishes!!!Online Chesshttp://www.alltimeplay.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6334453475526523597.post-60431098791474218462014-07-03T17:39:56.137+01:002014-07-03T17:39:56.137+01:00The Science paper used flow to sort tumour cells f...The Science paper used flow to sort tumour cells from normal cells (presumably to increase the number of tumour cells in the final analysis) which were then introduced into the C1 for SMART-seq. If flow-sorting had not been used then more normal cells may have had to be discarded, but there is undoubtedly an expression change introduced by sorting that will be a technical artifact. This is unlikely to be a problem if all samples are processed the same way, but in a C1 experiment the sorting will be confounded with date of processing as only one C1 chip can be run per day. Designing experiments s tough!James@cancerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02825715598810395734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6334453475526523597.post-89457882655166901982014-07-02T21:07:42.945+01:002014-07-02T21:07:42.945+01:00Good post, but I don't think the Science paper...Good post, but I don't think the Science paper was done with Fluidigm C1. Supp Data says "MoFlo XDP or Astrios high speed flow sorter" and "Strict singlets were selected for using pulse area/pulse width gates".<br /><br />For the read length, the Nature paper was 2x125bp (the new standard on HiSeq2500) and the Science paper was with 2x25bp (which I cannot remember having seen before, at least not since 2008). It's probably fine for expression, I am not so sure about splicing. The figure of EGFR seems convincing, the figure 1E much less...Nicolashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13495529976627542070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6334453475526523597.post-87801368760389315682014-07-02T05:44:17.460+01:002014-07-02T05:44:17.460+01:00It's really an informative and well described ...It's really an informative and well described post. I appreciate your topic for blogging. Thanks for sharing such a useful post.Online Strategy Gameshttp://www.alltimeplay.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6334453475526523597.post-84737966397979820262014-07-01T20:56:04.893+01:002014-07-01T20:56:04.893+01:00Totally agree with you given the importance of how...Totally agree with you given the importance of how it will be useful to future single-cell RNA-seq studies. nextgenseekhttp://nextgenseek.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6334453475526523597.post-11652009966612053032014-07-01T20:45:16.434+01:002014-07-01T20:45:16.434+01:00I used "maddeningly" for a reason: this ...I used "maddeningly" for a reason: this is important information to have in the paper, and certainly very clearly in the supplementals. Both papers have oodles of supplementary data, but digging through this to find out how I might repeat the experiment was a little too hard for my liking.James@cancerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02825715598810395734noreply@blogger.com