Art is science in love.
— E.F. Weisslitz
In genomics, insights can hinge on a difference of one. One cellular mutation to go from healthy to diseased. One cell migration from tumor to metastasis. Even subtle differences in gene expression between healthy cells shapes their form and function.
In Data in New Dimensions, we’ve created an immersive data art experience celebrating the individuality and often underestimated influence of the single cell—captured by high-throughput single cell analysis.
Using the rich data from the very tools and instruments in this room, we’ve transformed data points back into cells and, informed by their differences, allowed those cells to once again rejoin the world of the viewer in the third dimension.
How do these canvases make you think about the difference of one in your work?
This piece contrasts two different blood cell states, diseased versus healthy, in such a way that the differences manifest as depth. Cells on the base plane (the closest to the wall) represent healthy control cells, while diseased cells ascend increasingly closer to the viewer based on how different they are from their healthy counterpart.
This piece paints a picture of the diversity of disease, showing how the cells of a tumor and its metastasis vary in expression patterns. These differences are manifested in the piece through each cell’s position in the third dimension. Cells from the primary tumor exist on the base layer (closest to the wall). Cells from the metastatic site project into the room based on the degree of difference from the nearest primary tumor cell in their cluster.
This piece explores the expression differences that help determine a healthy cell’s role within an organism. Each cluster corresponds to a different cell type along the renal tubule, with that cluster’s depth mapping to its position along the tubule. Blood enters the tubule through the cells on the base layer (closest to the wall) and is filtered by the cells in the successively ascending layers. The remaining waste exits past the cells in the layer nearest to the viewer.
To achieve a `k` index for a movement you must perform `k` unbroken reps at `k`% 1RM.
The expected value for the `k` index is probably somewhere in the range of `k = 26` to `k=35`, with higher values progressively more difficult to achieve.
In my `k` index introduction article I provide detailed explanation, rep scheme table and WOD example.
The effect is intriguing and facetious—yes, those are real words.
But these are not: necronology, abobionalism, gabdologist, and nonerify.
These places only exist in the mind: Conchar and Pobacia, Hzuuland, New Kain, Rabibus and Megee Islands, Sentip and Sitina, Sinistan and Urzenia.
And these are the imaginary afflictions of the imagination: ictophobia, myconomascophobia, and talmatomania.
And these, of the body: ophalosis, icabulosis, mediatopathy and bellotalgia.
Want to name your baby? Or someone else's baby? Try Ginavietta Xilly Anganelel or Ferandulde Hommanloco Kictortick.
When taking new therapeutics, never mix salivac and labromine. And don't forget that abadarone is best taken on an empty stomach.
And nothing increases the chance of getting that grant funded than proposing the study of a new –ome! We really need someone to looking into the femome and manome.
An exploration of things that are missing in the human genome. The nullomers.
Julia Herold, Stefan Kurtz and Robert Giegerich. Efficient computation of absent words in genomic sequences. BMC Bioinformatics (2008) 9:167
We've already seen how data can be grouped into classes in our series on classifiers. In this column, we look at how data can be grouped by similarity in an unsupervised way.
We look at two common clustering approaches: `k`-means and hierarchical clustering. All clustering methods share the same approach: they first calculate similarity and then use it to group objects into clusters. The details of the methods, and outputs, vary widely.
Altman, N. & Krzywinski, M. (2017) Points of Significance: Clustering. Nature Methods 14:545–546.
Lever, J., Krzywinski, M. & Altman, N. (2016) Points of Significance: Logistic regression. Nature Methods 13:541-542.
Lever, J., Krzywinski, M. & Altman, N. (2016) Points of Significance: Classifier evaluation. Nature Methods 13:603-604.
In this redesign of a pie chart figure from a Nature Medicine article , I look at how to organize and present a large number of categories.
I first discuss some of the benefits of a pie chart—there are few and specific—and its shortcomings—there are few but fundamental.
I then walk through the redesign process by showing how the tumor categories can be shown more clearly if they are first aggregated into a small number groups.
(bottom left) Figure 2b from Zehir et al. Mutational landscape of metastatic cancer revealed from prospective clinical sequencing of 10,000 patients. (2017) Nature Medicine doi:10.1038/nm.4333
After 30 columns, this is our first one without a single figure. Sometimes a table is all you need.
In this column, we discuss nominal categorical data, in which data points are assigned to categories in which there is no implied order. We introduce one-way and two-way tables and the `\chi^2` and Fisher's exact tests.
Altman, N. & Krzywinski, M. (2017) Points of Significance: Tabular data. Nature Methods 14:329–330.