mentioned in the literature:
Instead, we found that clustering based on TF topic enrichment could reasonably align brain subclasses between species.
However, I have in the code 06.integration/inte.coembed.motif.R
#------------------------------
# reference-based clustering
quy.se@meta.data$queryCluster <- quy.se@meta.data[, quyAttr]
ref.se@meta.data$refCluster <- ref.se@meta.data[, refAttr]
quy.se@meta.data$set <- "query"
ref.se@meta.data$set <- "ref"
# get PCA based on motif z-score
ref.feature <- rownames(ref.se[["RNA"]])
ref.se <- RunPCA(ref.se, features = ref.feature)
#ref.se <- FindNeighbors(ref.se, dims = 1:30)
quy.feature <- rownames(quy.se[["RNA"]])
quy.se <- RunPCA(quy.se, features = quy.feature)
#quy.se <- FindNeighbors(quy.se, dims = 1:30)
se.lst <- list(ref=ref.se, query=quy.se)
# find anchors
se.features <- intersect(rownames(ref.se[["RNA"]]), rownames(quy.se[["RNA"]]))
se.anchors <- FindIntegrationAnchors(object.list = se.lst, anchor.features = se.features)
se.combined <- IntegrateData(anchorset = se.anchors)
# Perform an integrated analysis
DefaultAssay(se.combined) <- "integrated"
From the code you provided and the description of the problem, there really is no obvious code segment that shows direct cross-species integration using motifs or motif orthologs.What did I miss?
mentioned in the literature:
Instead, we found that clustering based on TF topic enrichment could reasonably align brain subclasses between species.
However, I have in the code
06.integration/inte.coembed.motif.RFrom the code you provided and the description of the problem, there really is no obvious code segment that shows direct cross-species integration using motifs or motif orthologs.What did I miss?