4 ms·
Wow, this paper is boring. I used to work in screening. In short its the measure of many cells with almost no conclusion and no believable path for generaliza
by frozenport 4y ago
Wow, this paper is boring.
I used to work in screening.
In short its the measure of many cells with almost no conclusion and no believable path for generalizability besides the advocacy specific cells can (kinda) be described by 8 PCA projected variables. The authors could have maybe screened more cells in 2D, and noted that cell geometry can be kinda described by some eigen modes - but once again the value of the parameters isn't obvious.
Usually you'd use these measurements to make conclusions or detect (by proxy) some cellular changes, perhaps related to disease. But no hypothesis guided this study.
- theGnuMe 4y agoAren’t these baselines?
- frozenport 4y agoNo because in a well designed experiment the baselines would be control measurements performed for the purpose of the experiment on the cell lines in question. In general cellular morphology is a proxy for more direct measurements. For example, you could imagine that some drug induces metabolic changes in cancer cells, and pick it up by noting the cells look a bit different or you could directly measure the metabolic changes using an FL system. Its not obvious what these measurements produce a baseline for.
- twic 4y agoAgreed, it's all a bit odd. There are no interesting discoveries here, so this must be a methods paper, which is fine, except it's a method that's so laborious that surely nobody will ever use it again. Still, laymen are clearly wowed by the scale of the thing, so it's perfect Nature fodder.
- dekhn 4y agomethod papers that produce reference data are absurdly valuable yet greatly undervalued because science incentivizes sexy discoveries. but so much of biology is "the first 8 PCA values explain 70% of the data" that most discoveries are really only the "obvious" stuff in the first 1-2 PCA.