[Bioc-devel] plotPCA for BiocGenerics

Ryan C. Thompson rct at thompsonclan.org
Fri Oct 31 23:53:51 CET 2014

I'd just like to chime in that regardless of what approach is chosen, I 
definitely would appreciate a way to get the plot data without actually 
making the plot. I often end up reimplementing plots in ggplot so that 
I can easily customize some aspect of them, so in such cases I need a 
way to just get the plot data/coordinates.

For example, if I have an edgeR DGEList and I want to get the X and Y 
coordinates for the MDS plot, I need to do something like:

mds.coords <- plotMDS(dge)

which is kind of unfortunate.

So I guess this is more a reminder to people implementing plots to also 
implement a way to get the plot data.


On Fri 31 Oct 2014 03:43:04 PM PDT, Steve Lianoglou wrote:
> Hi,
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Thomas Lin Pedersen
> <thomasp85 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> With regards to abstraction - I would personally much rather read and write code that contained plotScores() and plotScree() etc. where the intend of the code is clearly communicated, instead of relying on a plot() function whose result is only known from experience. Trying to squeeze every kind of visual output into the same plot generic seems artificial and constrained to me. I totally agree on the plotPCA critique on the other hand...
> If we've bought a ticket to ride on Kevin's and Michael's (and whoever
> else) train of thought, wouldn't plot(pca(x), type='scree') or
> plot(pca(x), type='scores') be the preferred way to go ... for some
> definition of "preferable"?
> -steve
>> Thomas
>>> On 31 Oct 2014, at 22:09, Michael Lawrence <lawrence.michael at gene.com> wrote:
>>> I strongly agree with Kevin's position. plotPCA() represents two separate concerns in its very name: the computation and the rendering. Those need to be separated, at least behind the scenes. The syntax of plot(pca(x)) is preferable to plotPCA, because the structure of the operation is represented by in the expression itself, not just in a non-computable function name.
>>> With regard to how a plot,PCA should behave: there is always a tension between high-level and low-level APIs. In the end, we need multiple levels of abstraction.  While high-level APIs sacrifice flexibility, we need them because they communicate the high-level *intent* of the user in the code itself (self-documenting code), and they enable reusability, which not only reduces redudant effort but also ensures consistency. Once our brains no longer need to parse low-level code, we can focus our mental power on correctness and efficiency. To design a high-level API, one needs to carefully analyze user requirements, i.e., the use cases. To choose the default behavior, one needs to rate the use cases by their prevalance, and by how closely they match the intuition-based expectations of the user.
>>> The fact that at least 9 packages are performing such a similar task seems to indicate that a common abstraction is warranted, but I am not sure if BiocGenerics is the appropriate place.
>>> Michael
>>> On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 12:54 AM, Thomas Dybdal Pedersen <thomasp85 at gmail.com <mailto:thomasp85 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> While I tend to agree with you that PCA is too big an operation to be hidden within a plotting function (MDS is an edge-case I would say), I can't see how we can ever reach a point where there is only one generic plot function. In the case of PCA there is a number of different plot-types that can all lay claim to the plot function of a PCA class, for instance scoreplot, scatterplot matrix of all scores, biplot, screeplot, accumulated R^2 barplot, leverage vs. distance-to-model... (you get the idea). So while having some very well-thought out classes for very common result types such as PCA, this class would still need a lot of different plot methods such as plotScores, plotScree etc (or plot(..., type='score'), but I don't find that very appealing). Expanding beyond PCA only muddles the water even more - there are very few interesting data structures that only have one visual representation to-rule-them-all...
>>> just my 2c
>>> best
>>> Thomas
>>>> Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 18:50:48 -0400
>>>> From: Kevin Coombes <kevin.r.coombes at gmail.com <mailto:kevin.r.coombes at gmail.com>>
>>>> Well. I have two responses to that.
>>>> First, I think it would be a lot better/easier for users if (most)
>>>> developers could make use of the same plot function for "basic" classes
>>>> like PCA.
>>>> Second, if you think the basic PCA plotting routine needs enhancements,
>>>> you still have two options.  On the one hand, you could (as you said)
>>>> try to convince the maintainer of PCA to add what you want.  If it's
>>>> generally valuable, then he'd probably do it --- and other classes that
>>>> use it would benefit.  On the other hand, if it really is a special
>>>> enhancement that only makes sense for your class, then you can derive a
>>>> class from the basic PCA class
>>>>      setClass("mySpecialPCA", contains=c("PCA"), *other stuff here*)
>>>>   and implement your own version of the "plot" generic for this class.
>>>> And you could tweak the "as.PCA" function so it returns an object of the
>>>> mySpecialPCA class. And the user could still just "plot" the result
>>>> without hacving to care what's happening behind the scenes.
>>>> On 10/20/2014 5:59 PM, Michael Love wrote:
>>>>> Ah, I see now. Personally, I don't think Bioconductor developers
>>>>> should have to agree on single plotting functions for basic classes
>>>>> like 'PCA' (because this logic applies equally to the situation of all
>>>>> Bioconductor developers agreeing on single MA-plot, a single
>>>>> variance-mean plot, etc). I think letting developers define their
>>>>> plotPCA makes contributions easier (I don't have to ask the owner of
>>>>> plot.PCA to incorporate something), even though it means we have a
>>>>> growing list of generics.
>>>>> Still you have a good point about splitting computation and plotting.
>>>>> In practice, we subset the rows so PCA is not laborious.
>>>>> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Kevin Coombes
>>>>> <kevin.r.coombes at gmail.com <mailto:kevin.r.coombes at gmail.com> <mailto:kevin.r.coombes at gmail.com <mailto:kevin.r.coombes at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>>>>>     Hi,
>>>>>     I don't see how it needs more functions (as long as you can get
>>>>>     developers to agree).  Suppose that someone can define a reusable
>>>>>     PCA class.  This will contain a single "plot" generic function,
>>>>>     defined once and reused by other classes. The existing "plotPCA"
>>>>>     interface can also be implemented just once, in this class, as
>>>>>         plotPCA <- function(object, ...) plot(as.PCA(object), ...)
>>>>>     This can be exposed to users of your class through namespaces.
>>>>>     Then the only thing a developer needs to implement in his own
>>>>>     class is the single "as.PCA" function.  And he/she would have
>>>>>     already been rquired to implement this as part of the old
>>>>>     "plotPCA" function.  So it can be extracted from that, and the
>>>>>     developer doesn't have to reimplement the visualization code from
>>>>>     the PCA class.
>>>>>     Best,
>>>>>       Kevin
>>>>>     On 10/20/2014 5:15 PM, davide risso wrote:
>>>>>>     Hi Kevin,
>>>>>>     I see your points and I agree (especially for the specific case
>>>>>>     of plotPCA that involves some non trivial computations).
>>>>>>     On the other hand, having a wrapper function that starting from
>>>>>>     the "raw" data gives you a pretty picture (with virtually zero
>>>>>>     effort by the user) using a sensible choice of parameters that
>>>>>>     are more or less OK for RNA-seq data is useful for practitioners
>>>>>>     that just want to look for patterns in the data.
>>>>>>     I guess it would be the same to have a PCA method for each of the
>>>>>>     objects and then using the plot method on those new objects, but
>>>>>>     that would just create a lot more objects and functions than the
>>>>>>     current approach (like Mike was saying).
>>>>>>     Your "as.pca" or "performPCA" approach would be definitely better
>>>>>>     if all the different methods would create objects of the *same*
>>>>>>     PCA class, but since we are talking about different packages, I
>>>>>>     don't know how easy it would be to coordinate. But perhaps this
>>>>>>     is the way we should go.
>>>>>>     Best,
>>>>>>     davide
>>>>>>     On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Kevin Coombes
>>>>>>     <kevin.r.coombes at gmail.com <mailto:kevin.r.coombes at gmail.com> <mailto:kevin.r.coombes at gmail.com <mailto:kevin.r.coombes at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>>>>>>         Hi,
>>>>>>         It depends.
>>>>>>         The "traditional" R approach to these matters is that you (a)
>>>>>>         first perform some sort of an analysis and save the results
>>>>>>         as an object and then (b) show or plot what you got.  It is
>>>>>>         part (b) that tends to be really generic, and (in my opinion)
>>>>>>         should have really generic names -- like "show" or "plot" or
>>>>>>         "hist" or "image".
>>>>>>         With PCA in particular, you usually have to perform a bunch
>>>>>>         of computations in order to get the principal components from
>>>>>>         some part of the data.  As I understand it now, these
>>>>>>         computations are performed along the way as part of the
>>>>>>         various "plotPCA" functions.  The "R way" to do this would be
>>>>>>         something like
>>>>>>             pca <- performPCA(mySpecialObject)  # or
>>>>>>         as.PCA(mySpecialObject)
>>>>>>             plot(pca) # to get the scatter plot
>>>>>>         This apporach has the user-friendly advantage that you can
>>>>>>         tweak the plot (in terms of colors, symbols, ranges, titles,
>>>>>>         etc) without having to recompute the principal components
>>>>>>         every time. (I often find myself re-plotting the same PCA
>>>>>>         several times, with different colors or symbols for different
>>>>>>         factrors associated with the samples.) In addition, you could
>>>>>>         then also do something like
>>>>>>             screeplot(pca)
>>>>>>         to get a plot of the percentages of variance explained.
>>>>>>         My own feeling is that if the object doesn't know what to do
>>>>>>         when you tell it to "plot" itself, then you haven't got the
>>>>>>         right abstraction.
>>>>>>         You may still end up needing generics for each kind of
>>>>>>         computation you want to perform (PCA, RLE, MA, etc), which is
>>>>>>         why I suggested an "as.PCA" function.  After all, "as" is
>>>>>>         already pretty generic.  In the long run, l this would herlp
>>>>>>         BioConductor developers, since they wouldn't all have to
>>>>>>         reimplement the visualization code; they would just have to
>>>>>>         figure out how to convert their own object into a PCA or RLE
>>>>>>         or MA object.
>>>>>>         And I know that this "plotWhatever" approach is used
>>>>>>         elsewhere in BioConductor, and it has always bothered me. It
>>>>>>         just seemed that a post suggesting a new generic function
>>>>>>         provided a reasonable opportunity to point out that there
>>>>>>         might be a better way.
>>>>>>         Best,
>>>>>>           Kevin
>>>>>>         PS: My own "ClassDicsovery" package, which is available from
>>>>>>         RForge via
>>>>>>         **|install.packages("ClassDiscovery",
>>>>>>         repos="http://R-Forge.R-project.org <http://r-forge.r-project.org/>"
>>>>>>         <http://R-Forge.R-project.org <http://r-forge.r-project.org/>>)|**
>>>>>>         includes a "SamplePCA" class that does something roughly
>>>>>>         similar to this for microarrays.
>>>>>>         PPS (off-topic): The worst offender in base R -- because it
>>>>>>         doesn't use this "typical" approch -- is the "heatmap"
>>>>>>         function.  Having tried to teach this function in several
>>>>>>         different classes, I have come to the conclusion that it is
>>>>>>         basically unusable by mortals.  And I think the problem is
>>>>>>         that it tries to combine too many steps -- clustering rows,
>>>>>>         clustering columns, scaling, visualization -- all in a single
>>>>>>         fiunction
>>>>>>         On 10/20/2014 3:47 PM, davide risso wrote:
>>>>>>>         Hi Kevin,
>>>>>>>         I don't agree. In the case of EDASeq (as I suppose it is the
>>>>>>>         case for DESeq/DESeq2) plotting the principal components of
>>>>>>>         the count matrix is only one of possible exploratory plots
>>>>>>>         (RLE plots, MA plots, etc.).
>>>>>>>         So, in my opinion, it makes more sense from an object
>>>>>>>         oriented point of view to have multiple plotting methods for
>>>>>>>         a single "RNA-seq experiment" object.
>>>>>>>         In addition, this is the same strategy adopted elsewhere in
>>>>>>>         Bioconductor, e.g., for the plotMA method.
>>>>>>>         Just my two cents.
>>>>>>>         Best,
>>>>>>>         davide
>>>>>>>         On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Kevin Coombes
>>>>>>>         <kevin.r.coombes at gmail.com <mailto:kevin.r.coombes at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>         <mailto:kevin.r.coombes at gmail.com <mailto:kevin.r.coombes at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>             I understand that breaking code is a problem, and that
>>>>>>>             is admittedly the main reason not to immediately adopt
>>>>>>>             my suggestion.
>>>>>>>             But as a purely logical exercise, creating a "PCA"
>>>>>>>             object X or something similar and using either
>>>>>>>                 plot(X)
>>>>>>>             or
>>>>>>>             plot(as.PCA(mySpecialObject))
>>>>>>>             is a much more sensible use of object-oriented
>>>>>>>             programming/design. This requires no new generics (to
>>>>>>>             write or to learn).
>>>>>>>             And you could use it to transition away from the current
>>>>>>>             system by convincing the various package maintainers to
>>>>>>>             re-implement plotPCA as follows:
>>>>>>>             plotPCA <- function(object, ...) {
>>>>>>>               plot(as.PCA(object), ...)
>>>>>>>             }
>>>>>>>             This would be relatively easy to eventually deprecate
>>>>>>>             and teach users to switch to the alternative.
>>>>>>>             On 10/20/2014 1:07 PM, Michael Love wrote:
>>>>>>>>             hi Kevin,
>>>>>>>>             that would imply there is only one way to plot an
>>>>>>>>             object of a given class. Additionally, it would break a
>>>>>>>>             lot of code.?
>>>>>>>>             best,
>>>>>>>>             Mike
>>>>>>>>             On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Kevin Coombes
>>>>>>>>             <kevin.r.coombes at gmail.com <mailto:kevin.r.coombes at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>             <mailto:kevin.r.coombes at gmail.com <mailto:kevin.r.coombes at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>                 But shouldn't they all really just be named "plot"
>>>>>>>>                 for the appropriate objects?  In which case, there
>>>>>>>>                 would already be a perfectly good generic....
>>>>>>>>                 On Oct 20, 2014 10:27 AM, "Michael Love"
>>>>>>>>                 <michaelisaiahlove at gmail.com <mailto:michaelisaiahlove at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>                 <mailto:michaelisaiahlove at gmail.com <mailto:michaelisaiahlove at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>                     I noticed that 'plotPCA' functions are defined
>>>>>>>>                     in EDASeq, DESeq2, DESeq,
>>>>>>>>                     affycoretools, Rcade, facopy, CopyNumber450k,
>>>>>>>>                     netresponse, MAIT (maybe
>>>>>>>>                     more).
>>>>>>>>                     Sounds like a case for BiocGenerics.
>>>>>>>>                     best,
>>>>>>>>                     Mike
>>>>>>>>                     [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>>>>>>>>                     _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>                     Bioc-devel at r-project.org <mailto:Bioc-devel at r-project.org>
>>>>>>>>                     <mailto:Bioc-devel at r-project.org <mailto:Bioc-devel at r-project.org>> mailing list
>>>>>>>>                     https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel>
>>>>>>>             ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>             <http://www.avast.com/ <http://www.avast.com/>>
>>>>>>>             This email is free from viruses and malware because
>>>>>>>             avast! Antivirus <http://www.avast.com/ <http://www.avast.com/>> protection is
>>>>>>>             active.
>>>>>>>         --
>>>>>>>         Davide Risso, PhD
>>>>>>>         Post Doctoral Scholar
>>>>>>>         Division of Biostatistics
>>>>>>>         School of Public Health
>>>>>>>         University of California, Berkeley
>>>>>>>         344 Li Ka Shing Center, #3370
>>>>>>>         Berkeley, CA 94720-3370
>>>>>>>         E-mail: davide.risso at berkeley.edu <mailto:davide.risso at berkeley.edu>
>>>>>>>         <mailto:davide.risso at berkeley.edu <mailto:davide.risso at berkeley.edu>>
>>>>>>         ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>         <http://www.avast.com/ <http://www.avast.com/>>
>>>>>>         This email is free from viruses and malware because avast!
>>>>>>         Antivirus <http://www.avast.com/ <http://www.avast.com/>> protection is active.
>>>>>>     --
>>>>>>     Davide Risso, PhD
>>>>>>     Post Doctoral Scholar
>>>>>>     Division of Biostatistics
>>>>>>     School of Public Health
>>>>>>     University of California, Berkeley
>>>>>>     344 Li Ka Shing Center, #3370
>>>>>>     Berkeley, CA 94720-3370
>>>>>>     E-mail: davide.risso at berkeley.edu <mailto:davide.risso at berkeley.edu> <mailto:davide.risso at berkeley.edu <mailto:davide.risso at berkeley.edu>>
>>>>>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>     <http://www.avast.com/ <http://www.avast.com/>>
>>>>>     This email is free from viruses and malware because avast!
>>>>>     Antivirus <http://www.avast.com/ <http://www.avast.com/>> protection is active.
>>>> ---
>>>> This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
>>>>        [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Bioc-devel mailing list
>>>> Bioc-devel at r-project.org <mailto:Bioc-devel at r-project.org>
>>>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel>
>>>> End of Bioc-devel Digest, Vol 127, Issue 43
>>>> *******************************************
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Bioc-devel at r-project.org <mailto:Bioc-devel at r-project.org> mailing list
>>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel <https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel>
>>          [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bioc-devel at r-project.org mailing list
>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel

More information about the Bioc-devel mailing list