Gviz AnnotationTrack - Consistent y-scales
1
0
Entering edit mode
@aliaksei-holik-4992
Last seen 8.1 years ago
Spain/Barcelona/Centre for Genomic Regu…
Hi Lance, I'm relatively new to Gviz myself, but I believe there might be a simple solution to your problem. I'm not sure, why the thread has AnnotationTrack - your problem doesn't seem to have anything to do with the annotation. If I understand correctly, you would like to ensure consistent y axis for your DataTracks between plots, while allowing DataTracks of different height within each plot. You can do so by passing ylim parameter to individual DataTrack commands, the same way I imagine you're passing the bam file, the col.histogram and fill.histogram parameters. I've just checked and it seems to work ok in Gviz_1.7.10, and Gviz_1.8.0. I hope it helps, Aliaksei. P.S. I'm not sure, why you needed a patch, if ylim is a standard parameter in Gviz. Apologies for possible confusion. On 1/05/14 5:39 AM, Lance Parsons wrote: > I've been using Gviz (1.8.0) to generate some figures using the > AnnotationTrack feature. Generally, things have worked quite well. I'd > like to plot a number of different coverage plots on the same figure and > the coverage graphs have rather different heights. I'd like to use a > consistent sized Y-scale between each plot, which led to my writing a > patch regarding an issue setting the ylim on those plots (submitted on > bioc-devel list). The patch I provided allows me to do that, but in > order to ensure the scale are the same, I need to set the height of each > graph the same. This leads to a lot of wasted space in the figure for > those plots with lower coverage. Does anyone have any suggestions for > how I might be able to ensure a consistent y-scale between the plots, > but also allow some plots to be shorter than others, thus eliminating > (or at least reducing) the wasted space? Thanks in advance for any advice. > > Example plotting graphs without setting ylim (not the scales for each > are different): http://i.imgur.com/68xObgx.png > Example of patched code with ylim set (now the ylim is used properly): > http://i.imgur.com/EXlrkqa.png > > I hope this helps to resolve what I think is an unintended bug. >
Coverage Annotation graph Gviz Coverage Annotation graph Gviz • 3.4k views
ADD COMMENT
0
Entering edit mode
Lance Parsons ▴ 130
@lance-parsons-6529
Last seen 9.3 years ago
United States
Thanks for you help, you are correct that the ylim parameter works as expected with a DataTrack. However, my issue is actually with the AlignmentTrack (my apologies for the confusion). With an AlignmentTrack (which looks much better when plotting coverage data, at least the way I'm using them), the scale is adjusted when setting a ylim, but the data is plotted according the automatically calculated ylim. However, I still have an issue with plotting consistent scales, but different heights. What I would like is for the scale on all of the graphs the same, in other words, the same number of pixels represents a consistent value (say 50 pixels equals a y-value of 50). However, I would like some data tracks to be from 0-100 and others to be from 0-200. Is that possible? Thanks for your help. Aliaksei Holik wrote: > Hi Lance, > > I'm relatively new to Gviz myself, but I believe there might be a > simple solution to your problem. I'm not sure, why the thread has > AnnotationTrack - your problem doesn't seem to have anything to do > with the annotation. If I understand correctly, you would like to > ensure consistent y axis for your DataTracks between plots, while > allowing DataTracks of different height within each plot. You can do > so by passing ylim parameter to individual DataTrack commands, the > same way I imagine you're passing the bam file, the col.histogram and > fill.histogram parameters. > > I've just checked and it seems to work ok in Gviz_1.7.10, and Gviz_1.8.0. > > I hope it helps, > > Aliaksei. > > P.S. I'm not sure, why you needed a patch, if ylim is a standard > parameter in Gviz. Apologies for possible confusion. > > On 1/05/14 5:39 AM, Lance Parsons wrote: >> I've been using Gviz (1.8.0) to generate some figures using the >> AnnotationTrack feature. Generally, things have worked quite well. I'd >> like to plot a number of different coverage plots on the same figure and >> the coverage graphs have rather different heights. I'd like to use a >> consistent sized Y-scale between each plot, which led to my writing a >> patch regarding an issue setting the ylim on those plots (submitted on >> bioc-devel list). The patch I provided allows me to do that, but in >> order to ensure the scale are the same, I need to set the height of each >> graph the same. This leads to a lot of wasted space in the figure for >> those plots with lower coverage. Does anyone have any suggestions for >> how I might be able to ensure a consistent y-scale between the plots, >> but also allow some plots to be shorter than others, thus eliminating >> (or at least reducing) the wasted space? Thanks in advance for any >> advice. >> >> Example plotting graphs without setting ylim (not the scales for each >> are different): http://i.imgur.com/68xObgx.png >> Example of patched code with ylim set (now the ylim is used properly): >> http://i.imgur.com/EXlrkqa.png >> >> I hope this helps to resolve what I think is an unintended bug. >> -- Lance Parsons - Scientific Programmer 134 Carl C. Icahn Laboratory Lewis-Sigler Institute for Integrative Genomics Princeton University
ADD COMMENT
0
Entering edit mode
Hi Lance, I wonder if the 'sizes' parameter in the plotTracks might be useful. This would allow you to set the track height to be proportional to the scale. E.g. if your first track's ylim=c(0, 3) and the second tracks's ylim=c(0, 5), set the sizes=c(3, 5). I've only tried it plotting DataTracks, but since it's passed to the plotTracks I can't see why it shouldn't work with AlignmentTrack. Sorry if I'm stating the obvious or missing the point again. Hope it helps, Aliaksei. On 2/05/14 12:14 AM, Lance Parsons wrote: > Thanks for you help, you are correct that the ylim parameter works as > expected with a DataTrack. However, my issue is actually with the > AlignmentTrack (my apologies for the confusion). With an AlignmentTrack > (which looks much better when plotting coverage data, at least the way > I'm using them), the scale is adjusted when setting a ylim, but the data > is plotted according the automatically calculated ylim. > > However, I still have an issue with plotting consistent scales, but > different heights. What I would like is for the scale on all of the > graphs the same, in other words, the same number of pixels represents a > consistent value (say 50 pixels equals a y-value of 50). However, I > would like some data tracks to be from 0-100 and others to be from > 0-200. Is that possible? > > Thanks for your help. > > Aliaksei Holik wrote: >> Hi Lance, >> >> I'm relatively new to Gviz myself, but I believe there might be a >> simple solution to your problem. I'm not sure, why the thread has >> AnnotationTrack - your problem doesn't seem to have anything to do >> with the annotation. If I understand correctly, you would like to >> ensure consistent y axis for your DataTracks between plots, while >> allowing DataTracks of different height within each plot. You can do >> so by passing ylim parameter to individual DataTrack commands, the >> same way I imagine you're passing the bam file, the col.histogram and >> fill.histogram parameters. >> >> I've just checked and it seems to work ok in Gviz_1.7.10, and Gviz_1.8.0. >> >> I hope it helps, >> >> Aliaksei. >> >> P.S. I'm not sure, why you needed a patch, if ylim is a standard >> parameter in Gviz. Apologies for possible confusion. >> >> On 1/05/14 5:39 AM, Lance Parsons wrote: >>> I've been using Gviz (1.8.0) to generate some figures using the >>> AnnotationTrack feature. Generally, things have worked quite well. I'd >>> like to plot a number of different coverage plots on the same figure and >>> the coverage graphs have rather different heights. I'd like to use a >>> consistent sized Y-scale between each plot, which led to my writing a >>> patch regarding an issue setting the ylim on those plots (submitted on >>> bioc-devel list). The patch I provided allows me to do that, but in >>> order to ensure the scale are the same, I need to set the height of each >>> graph the same. This leads to a lot of wasted space in the figure for >>> those plots with lower coverage. Does anyone have any suggestions for >>> how I might be able to ensure a consistent y-scale between the plots, >>> but also allow some plots to be shorter than others, thus eliminating >>> (or at least reducing) the wasted space? Thanks in advance for any >>> advice. >>> >>> Example plotting graphs without setting ylim (not the scales for each >>> are different): http://i.imgur.com/68xObgx.png >>> Example of patched code with ylim set (now the ylim is used properly): >>> http://i.imgur.com/EXlrkqa.png >>> >>> I hope this helps to resolve what I think is an unintended bug. >>> >
ADD REPLY
0
Entering edit mode
Thanks Aliaksei. This in fact does work, though it took a bit of tweaking. There are some constant size portions of the coverage track, even when no reads are plotted. This means that I had to add a constant to the sizes in addition to a variable value based on the ylim. Took a bit of work, but I seem to have it fixed, at least for my single case. Lance Aliaksei Holik wrote: > Hi Lance, > > I wonder if the 'sizes' parameter in the plotTracks might be useful. > This would allow you to set the track height to be proportional to the > scale. E.g. if your first track's ylim=c(0, 3) and the second tracks's > ylim=c(0, 5), set the sizes=c(3, 5). I've only tried it plotting > DataTracks, but since it's passed to the plotTracks I can't see why it > shouldn't work with AlignmentTrack. Sorry if I'm stating the obvious > or missing the point again. > > Hope it helps, > > Aliaksei. > > > On 2/05/14 12:14 AM, Lance Parsons wrote: >> Thanks for you help, you are correct that the ylim parameter works as >> expected with a DataTrack. However, my issue is actually with the >> AlignmentTrack (my apologies for the confusion). With an AlignmentTrack >> (which looks much better when plotting coverage data, at least the way >> I'm using them), the scale is adjusted when setting a ylim, but the data >> is plotted according the automatically calculated ylim. >> >> However, I still have an issue with plotting consistent scales, but >> different heights. What I would like is for the scale on all of the >> graphs the same, in other words, the same number of pixels represents a >> consistent value (say 50 pixels equals a y-value of 50). However, I >> would like some data tracks to be from 0-100 and others to be from >> 0-200. Is that possible? >> >> Thanks for your help. >> >> Aliaksei Holik wrote: >>> Hi Lance, >>> >>> I'm relatively new to Gviz myself, but I believe there might be a >>> simple solution to your problem. I'm not sure, why the thread has >>> AnnotationTrack - your problem doesn't seem to have anything to do >>> with the annotation. If I understand correctly, you would like to >>> ensure consistent y axis for your DataTracks between plots, while >>> allowing DataTracks of different height within each plot. You can do >>> so by passing ylim parameter to individual DataTrack commands, the >>> same way I imagine you're passing the bam file, the col.histogram and >>> fill.histogram parameters. >>> >>> I've just checked and it seems to work ok in Gviz_1.7.10, and >>> Gviz_1.8.0. >>> >>> I hope it helps, >>> >>> Aliaksei. >>> >>> P.S. I'm not sure, why you needed a patch, if ylim is a standard >>> parameter in Gviz. Apologies for possible confusion. >>> >>> On 1/05/14 5:39 AM, Lance Parsons wrote: >>>> I've been using Gviz (1.8.0) to generate some figures using the >>>> AnnotationTrack feature. Generally, things have worked quite >>>> well. I'd >>>> like to plot a number of different coverage plots on the same >>>> figure and >>>> the coverage graphs have rather different heights. I'd like to use a >>>> consistent sized Y-scale between each plot, which led to my writing a >>>> patch regarding an issue setting the ylim on those plots (submitted on >>>> bioc-devel list). The patch I provided allows me to do that, but in >>>> order to ensure the scale are the same, I need to set the height of >>>> each >>>> graph the same. This leads to a lot of wasted space in the figure for >>>> those plots with lower coverage. Does anyone have any suggestions for >>>> how I might be able to ensure a consistent y-scale between the plots, >>>> but also allow some plots to be shorter than others, thus eliminating >>>> (or at least reducing) the wasted space? Thanks in advance for any >>>> advice. >>>> >>>> Example plotting graphs without setting ylim (not the scales for each >>>> are different): http://i.imgur.com/68xObgx.png >>>> Example of patched code with ylim set (now the ylim is used properly): >>>> http://i.imgur.com/EXlrkqa.png >>>> >>>> I hope this helps to resolve what I think is an unintended bug. >>>> >> -- Lance Parsons - Scientific Programmer 134 Carl C. Icahn Laboratory Lewis-Sigler Institute for Integrative Genomics Princeton University
ADD REPLY
0
Entering edit mode
Hi Lance, Indeed this is the only way to force consistent pixel-to-yrange relationships. Somewhere on a long list of nice-to-haves there is a constantAspect parameter that would help with exactly the case you are describing. Let?s see whether I can promote that for one of the future releases. Florian On 05/05/14 16:46, "Lance Parsons" <lparsons at="" princeton.edu=""> wrote: >Thanks Aliaksei. This in fact does work, though it took a bit of >tweaking. There are some constant size portions of the coverage track, >even when no reads are plotted. This means that I had to add a constant >to the sizes in addition to a variable value based on the ylim. Took a >bit of work, but I seem to have it fixed, at least for my single case. > >Lance > >Aliaksei Holik wrote: >> Hi Lance, >> >> I wonder if the 'sizes' parameter in the plotTracks might be useful. >> This would allow you to set the track height to be proportional to the >> scale. E.g. if your first track's ylim=c(0, 3) and the second tracks's >> ylim=c(0, 5), set the sizes=c(3, 5). I've only tried it plotting >> DataTracks, but since it's passed to the plotTracks I can't see why it >> shouldn't work with AlignmentTrack. Sorry if I'm stating the obvious >> or missing the point again. >> >> Hope it helps, >> >> Aliaksei. >> >> >> On 2/05/14 12:14 AM, Lance Parsons wrote: >>> Thanks for you help, you are correct that the ylim parameter works as >>> expected with a DataTrack. However, my issue is actually with the >>> AlignmentTrack (my apologies for the confusion). With an AlignmentTrack >>> (which looks much better when plotting coverage data, at least the way >>> I'm using them), the scale is adjusted when setting a ylim, but the >>>data >>> is plotted according the automatically calculated ylim. >>> >>> However, I still have an issue with plotting consistent scales, but >>> different heights. What I would like is for the scale on all of the >>> graphs the same, in other words, the same number of pixels represents a >>> consistent value (say 50 pixels equals a y-value of 50). However, I >>> would like some data tracks to be from 0-100 and others to be from >>> 0-200. Is that possible? >>> >>> Thanks for your help. >>> >>> Aliaksei Holik wrote: >>>> Hi Lance, >>>> >>>> I'm relatively new to Gviz myself, but I believe there might be a >>>> simple solution to your problem. I'm not sure, why the thread has >>>> AnnotationTrack - your problem doesn't seem to have anything to do >>>> with the annotation. If I understand correctly, you would like to >>>> ensure consistent y axis for your DataTracks between plots, while >>>> allowing DataTracks of different height within each plot. You can do >>>> so by passing ylim parameter to individual DataTrack commands, the >>>> same way I imagine you're passing the bam file, the col.histogram and >>>> fill.histogram parameters. >>>> >>>> I've just checked and it seems to work ok in Gviz_1.7.10, and >>>> Gviz_1.8.0. >>>> >>>> I hope it helps, >>>> >>>> Aliaksei. >>>> >>>> P.S. I'm not sure, why you needed a patch, if ylim is a standard >>>> parameter in Gviz. Apologies for possible confusion. >>>> >>>> On 1/05/14 5:39 AM, Lance Parsons wrote: >>>>> I've been using Gviz (1.8.0) to generate some figures using the >>>>> AnnotationTrack feature. Generally, things have worked quite >>>>> well. I'd >>>>> like to plot a number of different coverage plots on the same >>>>> figure and >>>>> the coverage graphs have rather different heights. I'd like to use a >>>>> consistent sized Y-scale between each plot, which led to my writing a >>>>> patch regarding an issue setting the ylim on those plots (submitted >>>>>on >>>>> bioc-devel list). The patch I provided allows me to do that, but in >>>>> order to ensure the scale are the same, I need to set the height of >>>>> each >>>>> graph the same. This leads to a lot of wasted space in the figure >>>>>for >>>>> those plots with lower coverage. Does anyone have any suggestions >>>>>for >>>>> how I might be able to ensure a consistent y-scale between the plots, >>>>> but also allow some plots to be shorter than others, thus eliminating >>>>> (or at least reducing) the wasted space? Thanks in advance for any >>>>> advice. >>>>> >>>>> Example plotting graphs without setting ylim (not the scales for each >>>>> are different): http://i.imgur.com/68xObgx.png >>>>> Example of patched code with ylim set (now the ylim is used >>>>>properly): >>>>> http://i.imgur.com/EXlrkqa.png >>>>> >>>>> I hope this helps to resolve what I think is an unintended bug. >>>>> >>> > >-- >Lance Parsons - Scientific Programmer >134 Carl C. Icahn Laboratory >Lewis-Sigler Institute for Integrative Genomics >Princeton University > >_______________________________________________ >Bioconductor mailing list >Bioconductor at r-project.org >https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioconductor >Search the archives: >http://news.gmane.org/gmane.science.biology.informatics.conductor
ADD REPLY
0
Entering edit mode
Thanks Florian. This does seem to work, albeit with some trial and error. I do have a related question. Is there a way to pull out the automatically determined ylim from an AlignmentTrack (or DataTrack)? The automatically selected value is often a good one, and if I could use that when setting the track size it would be very nice. Thanks. Lance Hahne, Florian wrote: > > Hi Lance, > Indeed this is the only way to force consistent pixel-to-yrange > relationships. Somewhere on a long list of nice-to-haves there is a > constantAspect parameter that would help with exactly the case you are > describing. Let¹s see whether I can promote that for one of the future > releases. > Florian > > > > On 05/05/14 16:46, "Lance Parsons"<lparsons@princeton.edu> wrote: > >> >> Thanks Aliaksei. This in fact does work, though it took a bit of >> tweaking. There are some constant size portions of the coverage track, >> even when no reads are plotted. This means that I had to add a constant >> to the sizes in addition to a variable value based on the ylim. Took a >> bit of work, but I seem to have it fixed, at least for my single case. >> >> Lance >> >> Aliaksei Holik wrote: >>> >>> Hi Lance, >>> >>> I wonder if the 'sizes' parameter in the plotTracks might be useful. >>> This would allow you to set the track height to be proportional to the >>> scale. E.g. if your first track's ylim=c(0, 3) and the second tracks's >>> ylim=c(0, 5), set the sizes=c(3, 5). I've only tried it plotting >>> DataTracks, but since it's passed to the plotTracks I can't see why it >>> shouldn't work with AlignmentTrack. Sorry if I'm stating the obvious >>> or missing the point again. >>> >>> Hope it helps, >>> >>> Aliaksei. >>> >>> >>> On 2/05/14 12:14 AM, Lance Parsons wrote: >>>> >>>> Thanks for you help, you are correct that the ylim parameter works as >>>> expected with a DataTrack. However, my issue is actually with the >>>> AlignmentTrack (my apologies for the confusion). With an AlignmentTrack >>>> (which looks much better when plotting coverage data, at least the way >>>> I'm using them), the scale is adjusted when setting a ylim, but the >>>> data >>>> is plotted according the automatically calculated ylim. >>>> >>>> However, I still have an issue with plotting consistent scales, but >>>> different heights. What I would like is for the scale on all of the >>>> graphs the same, in other words, the same number of pixels represents a >>>> consistent value (say 50 pixels equals a y-value of 50). However, I >>>> would like some data tracks to be from 0-100 and others to be from >>>> 0-200. Is that possible? >>>> >>>> Thanks for your help. >>>> >>>> Aliaksei Holik wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Lance, >>>>> >>>>> I'm relatively new to Gviz myself, but I believe there might be a >>>>> simple solution to your problem. I'm not sure, why the thread has >>>>> AnnotationTrack - your problem doesn't seem to have anything to do >>>>> with the annotation. If I understand correctly, you would like to >>>>> ensure consistent y axis for your DataTracks between plots, while >>>>> allowing DataTracks of different height within each plot. You can do >>>>> so by passing ylim parameter to individual DataTrack commands, the >>>>> same way I imagine you're passing the bam file, the col.histogram and >>>>> fill.histogram parameters. >>>>> >>>>> I've just checked and it seems to work ok in Gviz_1.7.10, and >>>>> Gviz_1.8.0. >>>>> >>>>> I hope it helps, >>>>> >>>>> Aliaksei. >>>>> >>>>> P.S. I'm not sure, why you needed a patch, if ylim is a standard >>>>> parameter in Gviz. Apologies for possible confusion. >>>>> >>>>> On 1/05/14 5:39 AM, Lance Parsons wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I've been using Gviz (1.8.0) to generate some figures using the >>>>>> AnnotationTrack feature. Generally, things have worked quite >>>>>> well. I'd >>>>>> like to plot a number of different coverage plots on the same >>>>>> figure and >>>>>> the coverage graphs have rather different heights. I'd like to use a >>>>>> consistent sized Y-scale between each plot, which led to my writing a >>>>>> patch regarding an issue setting the ylim on those plots (submitted >>>>>> on >>>>>> bioc-devel list). The patch I provided allows me to do that, but in >>>>>> order to ensure the scale are the same, I need to set the height of >>>>>> each >>>>>> graph the same. This leads to a lot of wasted space in the figure >>>>>> for >>>>>> those plots with lower coverage. Does anyone have any suggestions >>>>>> for >>>>>> how I might be able to ensure a consistent y-scale between the plots, >>>>>> but also allow some plots to be shorter than others, thus eliminating >>>>>> (or at least reducing) the wasted space? Thanks in advance for any >>>>>> advice. >>>>>> >>>>>> Example plotting graphs without setting ylim (not the scales for each >>>>>> are different): http://i.imgur.com/68xObgx.png >>>>>> Example of patched code with ylim set (now the ylim is used >>>>>> properly): >>>>>> http://i.imgur.com/EXlrkqa.png >>>>>> >>>>>> I hope this helps to resolve what I think is an unintended bug. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> -- >> Lance Parsons - Scientific Programmer >> 134 Carl C. Icahn Laboratory >> Lewis-Sigler Institute for Integrative Genomics >> Princeton University >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Bioconductor mailing list >> Bioconductor@r-project.org >> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioconductor >> Search the archives: >> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.science.biology.informatics.conductor > > [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
ADD REPLY

Login before adding your answer.

Traffic: 866 users visited in the last hour
Help About
FAQ
Access RSS
API
Stats

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.

Powered by the version 2.3.6