2017
DOI: 10.1101/132811
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

FORKS: Finding Orderings Robustly using k-means and Steiner trees

Abstract: Recent advances in single cell RNA-seq technologies have provided researchers with unprecedented details of transcriptomic variation across individual cells.However, it has not been straightforward to infer differentiation trajectories from such data, due to the parameter-sensitivity of existing methods. Here, we present Finding Orderings Robustly using k-means and Steiner trees (FORKS), an algorithm that pseudo-temporally orders cells and thereby infers bifurcating state trajectories. FORKS, which is a generi… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
3
1

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 58 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The genetic distance between a subset of 44 cultivars was 0.322 or less, indicating a narrow genetic base and suggesting a recent common progenitor, consistent with monoecy and a poor seed set. Propagation resulted in seeds with different phenotypes (Sharma and Bal 1958). However, 81 percent of the fragments examined were polymorphic, suggesting that cultivars are genetically highly polymorphic.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The genetic distance between a subset of 44 cultivars was 0.322 or less, indicating a narrow genetic base and suggesting a recent common progenitor, consistent with monoecy and a poor seed set. Propagation resulted in seeds with different phenotypes (Sharma and Bal 1958). However, 81 percent of the fragments examined were polymorphic, suggesting that cultivars are genetically highly polymorphic.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Many of these metrics are case‐study‐specific; hence, they cannot be used for the general evaluation of TI methods. For example, TI methods are independently evaluated on whether they are robust to: (i) changes in variables , (ii) subsampling and (iii) their inherent stochasticity . Robustness to changes in the variables we employ for TI cannot be applied in mass cytometry data because the number of measured quantities is low compared to that of single‐cell RNAseq data.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The randomized feature mapping method was proposed by Rahimi and Recht [18,19] and has been widely used in classification applications [21,23]. The input samples can be mapped into a randomized Fourier feature space, in which the inner product of any two transformed vectors is equivalent to a shift-invariant kernel (such as Gaussian kernel) operation.…”
Section: The Random Fourier Feature Mappingmentioning
confidence: 99%