...
212 samples from the transcribed list do not match anything in samplesInSites
(an R object that reflects the spreadsheets that came from Tennessee). These are in DisputedTubes
in the R workspace.
To make progress understanding where these samples might have come from, I looked at what there sample type was:
table(gsub("^Site_[[:digit:]]+(.*)[[:digit:]]+$", "\1", DisputedTubes$Sample))
Code Block |
---|
_Alf_Epi Alf_Epi Site_129_Alf_Epi_5_ Soil
1 89 1 16
Trans_Endo Trans_Epi
74 31 |
Most of the samples are from sites 105, 106, and 107.
table(gsub("^Site_([[:digit:]]+)_.*$", "\1", DisputedTubes$Sample))
101 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 116 120 125 126 129 134
1 10 10 40 39 40 4 15 14 10 2 7 9 2 9
Gregg Randolph : on line 361 of manageAlfalfa2.R, you have ShippedTubes <- samplesInSites[!(samplesInSites$site %in% unique(samplesInPlates$site)),]
. I am not entirely sure what this subsetting was for, but it turns out that some (maybe all of our sample names that we thought we were missing (the 212 above) are in the samplesInSites
variable, but not in ShippedTubes
. For example, forty of the 212 samples, were attributable to site 107. There is not Site 107 in ShippedTubes, but these samples do appear to be in samplesInSites
.
grep("^Site_107", ShippedTubes$modmodname, value = TRUE)
returns no values
samplesInSites[samplesInSites == 107,]
Sites with Tube Samples Not Matching from TN spreadsheet | Sites with Tube Samples Not Matching from our spreadsheet |
---|---|
101 | 101 |
102 | |
103 | |
104 | |
107 | |
108 | |
109 | |
110 | |
111 | |
116 | |
127 | |
128 | |
129 |
...