I use WGCNA package for analyzing the co-expressed genes. Here I try to Form a data frame analogous to expression data that will hold the clinical traits. and i use the following codes:
table for traitData
| x | sample | NoduleperPlant |
|- |- |- |
| 1 | 1021_verbena_rep_1 | 2 |
| 2 | 1021_verbena_rep_2 | 3 |
| 3 | 1021_verbena_rep_3 | 1 |
| 4 | 1021_camporegio_rep_1 | 2 |
| 5 | 1021_camporegio_rep_2 | 3 |
| 6 | 1021_camporegio_rep_3 | 4 |
| 7 | BL225C_camporegio_rep_1 | 5 |
| 8 | BL225C_camporegio_rep_2 | 4 |
| 9 | BL225C_camporegio_rep_3 | 1 |
Table dfxpr (some of the genes are presented in table)
|FIELD1 |aacC-1|aacC4-1|aapJ-1|aapM-1|aapP-1|aapQ-1|aarF-1|
|-----------------------|------|-------|------|------|------|------|------|
|X1021_verbena_rep_1 |42 |46 |12412 |935 |3354 |2876 |550 |
|X1021_verbena_rep_2 |52 |37 |11775 |946 |2970 |2824 |514 |
|X1021_verbena_rep_3 |12 |22 |5077 |397 |1462 |1228 |230 |
|X1021_camporegio_rep_1 |52 |71 |12983 |1454 |3408 |3248 |707 |
|X1021_camporegio_rep_2 |20 |65 |9240 |803 |2807 |3146 |445 |
|X1021_camporegio_rep_3 |28 |53 |11030 |1065 |3480 |3410 |582 |
|BL225C_camporegio_rep_1|29 |19 |6346 |375 |938 |768 |118 |
|BL225C_camporegio_rep_2|51 |62 |12938 |781 |1765 |1629 |291 |
|BL225C_camporegio_rep_3|52 |43 |6462 |504 |1120 |1091 |238 |
traitData = read.csv("NodulPerPlantTraitForLowGroup.csv"); #this csv file contains 3 columns as the first column is non-relevant information, second column contains the names of samples and the third column holds the values measured for the traits.
# remove columns that hold information I do not need.
allTraits = traitData[, -1];
allTraits = allTraits[, 1:2];
# Form a data frame analogous to expression data that will hold the clinical traits.
lowNoduleSamples = rownames(dfxpr) #dfxpr is a data frame containing 9 observations (i.e. samples) and 6398 variables (i.e. genes)
traitRows = match(lowNoduleSamples, allTraits$sample); #here is the line i get wrong values as NAs while i know they all should match
datTraits = allTraits[traitRows, -1]; #then this lines result NAs too
rownames(datTraits) = allTraits[traitRows, 1];
collectGarbage();
how can I fix the problem?
I have Added a "drop = FALSE" to this line: datTraits = allTraits[traitRows, -1]
datTraits = allTraits[traitRows, -1, drop = FALSE]
I realized that my allTraits contains only 2 columns; when I remove the first one, I'm left with just one column and R converts that into a single vector unless I add the drop = FALSE argument.
Related
I have two dataframes. One is a set of ≈4000 entries that looks similar to this:
| grade_col1 | grade_col2 |
| --- | --- |
| A-| A-|
| B | 86|
| C+| C+|
| B-| D |
| A | A |
| C-| 72|
| F | 96|
| B+| B+|
| B | B |
| A-| A-|
The other is a set of ≈700 entries that look similar to this:
| grade | scale |
| --- | --- |
| A+|100|
| A+| 99|
| A+| 98|
| A+| 97|
| A | 96|
| A | 95|
| A | 94|
| A | 93|
| A-| 92|
| A-| 91|
| A-| 90|
| B+| 89|
| B+| 88|
...and so on.
What I'm trying to do is create a new column that shows whether grade_col2 matches grade_col1 with a binary, 0-1 output (0 = no match, 1 = match). Most of grade_col2 is shown by letter grade. But every once in awhile an entry in grade_col2 was accidentally entered as a numeric grade instead. I want this match column to give me a "1" even when grade_col2 is a numeric grade instead of a letter grade. In other words, if grade_col1 is B and grade_col2 is 86, I want this to still be read as a match. Only when grade_col1 is F and grade_col2 is 96 would this not be a match (similar to when grade_col1 is B- and grade_col2 is D = not a match).
The second data frame gives me the information I need to translate between one and the other (entries between 97-100 are A+, between 93-96 are A, and so on). I just don't know how to run a script that uses this information to find matches through all ≈4000 entries. Theoretically, I could do this manually, but the real dataset is so lengthy that this isn't realistic.
I had been thinking of using nested if_else statements with dplyr. But once I got past the first "if" statement, I got stuck. I'd appreciate any help with this people can offer.
You can do this using a join.
Let your first dataframe be grades_df and your second dataframe be lookup_df, then you want something like the following:
output = grades_df %>%
# join on look up, keeping everything grades table
left_join(lookup_df, by = c(grade_col2 = "scale")) %>%
# combine grade_col2 from grades_df and grade from lookup_df
mutate(grade_col2b = ifelse(is.na(grade), grade_col2, grade)) %>%
# indicator column
mutate(indicator = ifelse(grade_col1 == grade_col2b, 1, 0))
I am trying to split a single row in my data set into multiple rows by keeping the delimiter intact.
This is a sample of my input data set
|---------------------|----------------------------------------------- |
| Group | Rules |
|---------------------|----------------------------------------------- |
| 1 | 1. Teams must be split into two |
| | 2. Teams must have ten players in each team |
| | 3. Each player must bring their own gear |
|---------------------|----------------------------------------------- |
When I use Strsplit function, I get the following output:
df = data.frame(rules =unlist(strsplit(as.character(df$Rules),"?=[[digits]]", perl = T)))
|---------------------|----------------------------------------------- |
| Group | Rules |
|---------------------|----------------------------------------------- |
| 1 | 1 |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------- |
1 | .Teams must be split into two |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 1 | 2 |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------- |
1 | .Teams must have ten players in each team |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------- |
My desired Output
|---------------------|----------------------------------------------- |
| Group | Rules |
|---------------------|----------------------------------------------- |
| 1 | 1.Teams must be split into two |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 1 | 2.Teams must have ten players in each team |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------- |
Here is a way to collapse each number with the following character string in column Rules. It throws warnings, not errors.
grp <- cumsum(!is.na(as.numeric(df$Rules)))
res <- lapply(split(df, grp), function(X){
data.frame(Group = X[[1]][1],
Rules = paste(X[[2]], collapse = ""))
})
res <- do.call(rbind, res)
res
# Group Rules
#1 1 1.Teams must be split into two
#2 1 2.Teams must have ten players in each team
Data.
df <- data.frame(Group = rep(1, 4),
Rules = c(1, ".Teams must be split into two",
2, ".Teams must have ten players in each team"),
stringsAsFactors = FALSE)
I want to create a calculated field to use with the rpivotTable package, similar to the functionality seen in excel.
For instance, consider the following table:
+--------------+--------+---------+-------------+-----------------+
| Manufacturer | Vendor | Shipper | Total Units | Defective Units |
+--------------+--------+---------+-------------+-----------------+
| A | P | X | 173247 | 34649 |
| A | P | Y | 451598 | 225799 |
| A | P | Z | 759695 | 463414 |
| A | Q | X | 358040 | 225565 |
| A | Q | Y | 102068 | 36744 |
| A | Q | Z | 994961 | 228841 |
| A | R | X | 454672 | 231883 |
| A | R | Y | 275994 | 124197 |
| A | R | Z | 691100 | 165864 |
| B | P | X | 755594 | 302238 |
| . | . | . | . | . |
| . | . | . | . | . |
+--------------+--------+---------+-------------+-----------------+
(my actual table has many more columns, both dimensions and measures, time, etc. and I need to define multiple such "calculated columns")
If I want to calculate defect rate (which would be Defective Units/Total Units) and I want to aggregate by either of the first three columns, I'm not able to.
I tried assignment by reference (:=), but that still didn't seem to work and summed up defect rates (i.e., sum(Defective_Units/Total_Units)), instead of sum(Defective_Units)/sum(Total_Units):
myData[, Defect.Rate := Defective_Units / Total_Units]
This ended up giving my defect rates greater than 1. Is there anywhere I can declare a calculated field, which is just a formula evaluated post aggregation?
You're lucky - the creator of pivottable.js foresaw cases like yours (and mine, earlier today) by implementing an aggregator called "Sum over Sum" and a few more, likewise, cf. https://github.com/nicolaskruchten/pivottable/blob/master/src/pivot.coffee#L111 and https://github.com/nicolaskruchten/pivottable/blob/master/src/pivot.coffee#L169.
So we'll use "Sum over Sum" as parameter "aggregatorName", and the columns whose quotient we want in the "vals" parameter.
Here's a meaningless usage example from the mtcars data for reproducibility:
require(rpivotTable)
data(mtcars)
rpivotTable(mtcars,rows="gear", cols=c("cyl","carb"),
aggregatorName = "Sum over Sum",
vals =c("mpg","disp"),
width="100%", height="400px")
I'm using a double apply function to get a list of p-values for cor.test between any two columns of two tables.
hel_plist<-apply(bc, 2, function(x) { apply(otud, 2, function(y) { if (cor.test(x,y,method="spearman", exact=FALSE)$p.value<0.05){cor.test(x,y,method="spearman", exact=FALSE)$p.value}}) })
The otud data.frame is 90X11 (90rows,11 colums or to say dim(otud) 90 11) and will be used with different data.frames.
bc and hel - are both 90X2 data.frame-s - so for both I get 2*11=22 p-values out of functions
bc_plist<-apply(bc, 2, function(x) { apply(otud, 2, function(y) { if (cor.test(x,y,method="spearman", exact=FALSE)$p.value<0.05){cor.test(x,y,method="spearman", exact=FALSE)$p.value}}) })
hel_plist<-apply(hel, 2, function(x) { apply(otud, 2, function(y) { if (cor.test(x,y,method="spearman", exact=FALSE)$p.value<0.05){cor.test(x,y,method="spearman", exact=FALSE)$p.value}}) })
For bc I will have an output with dim=NULL a list of elements of otunames$bcnames$ p-value (a format that I have always got from these scripts and are happy with)
But for hel I will get and output of dim(hel) 11 2 - an 11X2 table with p-values written inside.
Shortened examples of output.
hel_plist
+--------+--------------+--------------+
| | axis1 | axis2 |
+--------+--------------+--------------+
| Otu037 | 1.126362e-18 | 0.01158251 |
| Otu005 | 3.017458e-2 | NULL |
| Otu068 | 0.00476002 | NULL |
| Otu070 | 1.27646e-15 | 5.252419e-07 |
+--------+--------------+--------------+
bc_plist
$axis1
$axis1$Otu037
[1] 1.247717e-06
$axis1$Otu005
[1] 1.990313e-05
$axis1$Otu068
[1] 5.664597e-07
Why is it like that when the input formats are all the same? (Shortened examples)
bc
+-------+-----------+-----------+
| group | axis1 | axis2 |
+-------+-----------+-----------+
| 1B041 | 0.125219 | 0.246319 |
| 1B060 | -0.022412 | -0.030227 |
| 1B197 | -0.088005 | -0.305351 |
| 1B222 | -0.119624 | -0.144123 |
| 1B227 | -0.148946 | -0.061741 |
+-------+-----------+-----------+
hel
+-------+---------------+---------------+
| group | axis1 | axis2 |
+-------+---------------+---------------+
| 1B041 | -0.0667782322 | -0.1660606406 |
| 1B060 | 0.0214470932 | -0.0611351008 |
| 1B197 | 0.1761876858 | 0.0927570627 |
| 1B222 | 0.0681058251 | 0.0549292399 |
| 1B227 | 0.0516864361 | 0.0774155225 |
| 1B235 | 0.1205676221 | 0.0181712761 |
+-------+---------------+---------------+
How could I force my scripts to always produce "flat" outputs as in the case of bc
OK different output-s are caused because of the NULL results from conditional function in bc_plist case. If I'd to modify code to replace possible NULL-s with NA-s I'd get 2d tables in any case.
So to keep things constant :
bc_nmds_plist<-apply(bc_nmds, 2, function(x) { apply(stoma_otud, 2, function(y) { if (cor.test(x,y,method="spearman", exact=FALSE)$p.value<0.05){cor.test(x,y,method="spearman", exact=FALSE)$p.value}else NA}) })
And I get a 2d tabel out for bc_nmds_plist too.
So I guess this thing can be called solved - as I now have a piece of code that produces predictable output on any correct input.
If anyone has any idea how to force the output to conform to previos bc_plist format instead I would still be interested as I do actually prefer that form:
$axis1
$axis1$Otu037
[1] 1.247717e-06
$axis1$Otu005
[1] 1.990313e-05
$axis1$Otu068
[1] 5.664597e-07
Sum of var values by group with certain values excluded conditioned on the other variable.
How to do it elegantly without transposing?
So in the table below for each (fTicker, DATE_f), I seek to sum the values of wght with the value of wght conditioned on sTicker excluded from the sum.
In the table below, (excl_val,sTicker=A) |(fTicker=XLK, DATE_f = 6/20/2003) = wght_AAPL_6/20/2003_XLK + wght_AA_6/20/2003_XLK but not the wght for sTicker=A
+---------+---------+-----------+-------------+-------------+
| sTicker | fTicker | DATE_f | wght | excl_val |
+---------+---------+-----------+-------------+-------------+
| A | XLK | 6/20/2003 | 0.087600002 | 1.980834016 |
| A | XLK | 6/23/2003 | 0.08585 | 1.898560068 |
| A | XLK | 6/24/2003 | 0.085500002 | |
| AAPL | XLK | 6/20/2003 | 0.070080002 | |
| AAPL | XLK | 6/23/2003 | 0.06868 | |
| AAPL | XLK | 6/24/2003 | 0.068400002 | |
| AA | XLK | 6/20/2003 | 1.910754014 | |
| AA | XLK | 6/23/2003 | 1.829880067 | |
| AA | XLK | 6/24/2003 | 1.819775 | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
+---------+---------+-----------+-------------+-------------+
There are several fTicker groups with many sTicker in them (10 to 70), some sTicker may belong to several fTicker. The end result should be an excl_val for each sTicker on each DATE_f and for each fTicker.
I did it by transposing in SAS with resulting file about 6 gb but the same approach in R, blew memory up to 40 gb and it's basically unworkable.
In R, I got as far as this
weights$excl_val <- with(weights, aggregate(wght, list(fTicker, DATE_f), sum, na.rm=T))
but it's just a simple sum (without excluding the necessary observation) and there is mismatch between rows length. If i could condition the sum to exclude the sTicker obs for wght from the summation, i think it might work.
About the excl_val length: i computed it in excel, for just 2 cells, that's why it's short
Thank you!
Arsenio
When you have data in a data.frame, it is better if the rows are meaningful
(in particular, the columns should have the same length):
in this case, excl_val looks like a separate vector.
After putting the information it contains in the data.frame,
things become easier.
# Sample data
k <- 5
d <- data.frame(
sTicker = rep(LETTERS[1:k], k),
fTicker = rep(LETTERS[1:k], each=k),
DATE_f = sample( seq(Sys.Date(), length=2, by=1), k*k, replace=TRUE ),
wght = runif(k*k)
)
excl_val <- sample(d$wght, k)
# Add a "valid" column to the data.frame
d$valid <- ! d$wght %in% excl_val
# Compute the sum
library(plyr)
ddply(d, c("fTicker","DATE_f"), summarize, sum=sum(wght[valid]))