GUIDE 02 · WORKFLOW IN PRACTICE

Natural-language transcriptomics: from GEO data to a reproducible report.

A compact case study built around LPS-stimulated human macrophages: narrow the question, select GSE248578, prepare an isolated analysis environment, and review the report and its local artifacts.

Video length10:07
LevelIntermediate
Recorded withv0.9.0
NarrationChinese narration

Original video published

Watch the original on Bilibili

01 / What you will learn

What you will learn

  • Translate a biological question into dataset, comparison, and output requirements.
  • Inspect GEO metadata and study design before accepting a candidate dataset.
  • Keep the R environment and package choices attached to the project.
  • Review differential-expression, enrichment, figures, and narrative as one analysis record.
  • Recognize where statistical and biological review must remain human-led.

02 / Before you begin

Before you begin

  • Basic familiarity with RNA-seq counts, experimental groups, and biological replicates.
  • A configured Wisp Science project with permission to create local files and environments.
  • Enough disk space and network access to retrieve public GEO data and analysis packages.

VIDEO MAP

Video chapters

Timestamps are approximate chapter markers prepared from the video.

  1. Define the LPS macrophage question
  2. Repository and recorded-version context
  3. Preview the completed workspace and report
  4. Review the seven-step analysis plan
  5. Search GEO and screen candidate datasets
  6. Select GSE248578 and inspect its design
  7. Audit runtime capabilities and workspace
  8. Bootstrap the R/Bioconductor environment
  9. Run analysis, enrichment, and failure recovery
  10. Build the report from saved result tables
  11. Audit code, logs, tables, and directories
  12. Review 11 figures and report limitations
  13. Wrap-up and project link

1. Define the comparison before searching for data

The demonstration starts with a biological request: examine how LPS stimulation changes gene expression in human macrophages and produce an interpretable report.

Turn that request into explicit criteria—species, cell model, treatment, control, replication, data type, and desired outputs—before choosing a public study.

2. Use GEO discovery as a screening step, not a download button

Wisp Science searches candidate GEO series, then selects GSE248578 for the worked example. The visible report describes human GM-CSF-derived macrophages with matched control and LPS-stimulated samples from three donors.

Before analysis, verify the sample table, treatment duration, raw or processed file type, and whether the comparison is truly supported by the study design.

  • Confirm accession, organism, cell model, and group labels on the GEO record.
  • Check that biological replicates are not being treated as technical replicates.
  • Read the source publication when a design detail is ambiguous.

3. Build an isolated environment when the machine is not analysis-ready

The session discovers that the required R environment is not already available. Instead of changing the whole computer, it bootstraps a project-scoped R/Bioconductor environment with pixi, conda-forge, and BiocManager, while preserving the lockfile, installation scripts, and logs.

The report shown in the walkthrough names DESeq2 and clusterProfiler alongside the R environment. Exact versions belong in the methods record because they affect reproducibility.

4. Put quality control before interpretation

A reliable workflow checks sample relationships and count behavior before discussing pathways. The generated artifact set includes quality-control and differential-expression views rather than only a final gene list.

Use PCA or related sample-level diagnostics to inspect grouping and outliers. If the design is paired by donor, preserve that structure in the statistical model instead of treating all samples as independent.

5. Connect differential expression to enrichment without overstating it

The workflow proceeds from differential-expression results to functional interpretation and generates multiple plots and tables in the project. Enrichment summarizes patterns in a ranked or selected gene set; it does not prove a pathway mechanism by itself.

Review thresholds, identifier mapping, background universe, direction of change, and whether the reported terms fit both the data and established LPS biology. The recorded report itself notes that donor effects were not modeled even though samples come from three donors, so the design matrix requires expert correction before scientific use.

6. Treat failure recovery as part of reproducibility

The recording does not hide the rough edges: package metadata is unavailable from one mirror, DESeq2 cannot be installed through the first Windows conda route, and a GSEA curve step fails. The workflow changes sources, uses BiocManager, and runs a supplementary script.

Keep the failed commands, environment changes, and recovery scripts beside the successful output. A clean final figure without that history is less reproducible than an imperfect run with a complete record.

7. Review the report as a bundle of evidence, code, and files

The final report remains open beside the session while generated code, environment files, tables, logs, and figures are visible in the project directory. The recorded session shows 11 figures spanning quality control, differential expression, enrichment, and GSEA; treat those as outputs of this run, not independently verified biological findings.

Before using the result, inspect every plot, check that each table can be regenerated, and compare the methods paragraph with the actual environment and code. The report also notes a single 16-hour time point and an unmodeled donor effect. The agent accelerates assembly; statistical and biological validity remain the researcher’s responsibility.

SUMMARY

Key takeaways

  1. 01

    Dataset selection begins with a comparison specification and metadata review.

  2. 02

    Environment files, package versions, code, figures, and prose belong to one project record.

  3. 03

    Failed commands and recovery steps belong in that record too.

  4. 04

    Quality control and design-aware statistics come before biological interpretation.

  5. 05

    A reproducible report is useful because its claims can be traced back to artifacts and inputs.

Source and attribution

Source and attribution

This written companion summarizes a Chinese-language video by M78的微型小怪兽. The Bilibili upload remains the original source and complete walkthrough.

Video demonstration and narration: M78的微型小怪兽