Seqanswers Leaderboard Ad

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Basic questions about fold change calculations

    Hello, SEQanswers! I'm a student of biotech and I'm currently doing my bachelor thesis somewhat related to bioinformatics, and a part of it is to look at changes in expression levels for genes from RNA-seq data. I know basically nothing of this field, but I'm trying to learn, so I'm sorry if my questions are way too basic and/or stupid. I feel that bioinformatics could possibly be something I want to do for a masters degree, so I really want to dive as deep into it as I can at this opportunity!

    First question, fold change. The way I understand it this is simply the abundance level (I read that RPKM is an abundance level, but I haven't read that much about it yet) for gene X in sample A divided by sample B, correct? But when I search for articles for fold change I mostly find various software for "differential expression" (which I assume is sort of the same as fold change?). I cannot find any articles that use fold change as sample A/sample B... Why is this? I assume that there is some reason that you can't or shouldn't do this calculation, but I don't understand what it is.

    Second question, (which I discovered when trying to find answers to the first question) is about genes with very low abundance. Regardless of how you calculate fold change, how do you account for genes that have a very low abundance level, i.e. close to the limit of detection? For example, if you have abundance levels of sample A and sample B that is (both) close to 0, but still yield some fold change you are interested in, can you really say that the gene has a different abundance level? I mean, if both abundance levels are so close to the limit of detection they could both possibly be false, right? How do you generally account for this kind of thing, or do I just misunderstand how RNA-seq detection limits work? I read that an RPKM of 1 is approximately equivalent to 1 RNA molecule per cell, so if you have RPKMs of (for example) 0.8 and 0.2 you will have a fold change of 4, but can you really trust that number?

  • #2
    Most (probably all) packages that are used to find differentially expressed genes will return either a fold-change or a log2 fold-change (this is typically computed on the log2 scale). You would normally compute the fold-change between groups, rather than between samples (since who cares if two samples differ if the groups that they're part of don't).

    You're second question relates to the first. Firstly one computes a p-value and then sort the significant results by fold-change, since low abundance genes/transcripts will show randomly high fold-changes. Secondly, one can compute the fold-change by incorporating a prior distribution. This is done in DESeq2, for example, where lowly expressed genes will have their fold-changes shrunken toward 0.

    There is no fixed correspondence between RPKM and molecules per cell. In fact, you would be wise to not use RPKM for any statistics, use either raw or estimated counts instead.

    Comment


    • #3
      Oh, okay. But where do you get the p-value from? That is some sort of hypothesis test, right? So if fold change is gene x in group A / group B, how do I get a p-value from that? And is it possible to get significant p-values ever for genes expressed close to zero (in the groups)?

      Why is RPKM bad for statistics? I think I read that some software use RPKM (Cufflinks?). Why is raw (what do you mean by that?) or estimated counts better?

      Comment


      • #4
        Yes, the p-value is derived from a hypothesis test. Popular programs for this include DESeq2, edgeR, limma/voom, and cuffdiff. It's typically not possible to get significant results from very lowly expressed genes, since they tend to lack enough alignments to lend statistical power.

        The conversion to RPKM loses all precision information, which makes it difficult to use for statistics. You can google for more.

        Comment

        Latest Articles

        Collapse

        • seqadmin
          Current Approaches to Protein Sequencing
          by seqadmin


          Proteins are often described as the workhorses of the cell, and identifying their sequences is key to understanding their role in biological processes and disease. Currently, the most common technique used to determine protein sequences is mass spectrometry. While still a valuable tool, mass spectrometry faces several limitations and requires a highly experienced scientist familiar with the equipment to operate it. Additionally, other proteomic methods, like affinity assays, are constrained...
          04-04-2024, 04:25 PM
        • seqadmin
          Strategies for Sequencing Challenging Samples
          by seqadmin


          Despite advancements in sequencing platforms and related sample preparation technologies, certain sample types continue to present significant challenges that can compromise sequencing results. Pedro Echave, Senior Manager of the Global Business Segment at Revvity, explained that the success of a sequencing experiment ultimately depends on the amount and integrity of the nucleic acid template (RNA or DNA) obtained from a sample. “The better the quality of the nucleic acid isolated...
          03-22-2024, 06:39 AM

        ad_right_rmr

        Collapse

        News

        Collapse

        Topics Statistics Last Post
        Started by seqadmin, 04-11-2024, 12:08 PM
        0 responses
        30 views
        0 likes
        Last Post seqadmin  
        Started by seqadmin, 04-10-2024, 10:19 PM
        0 responses
        32 views
        0 likes
        Last Post seqadmin  
        Started by seqadmin, 04-10-2024, 09:21 AM
        0 responses
        28 views
        0 likes
        Last Post seqadmin  
        Started by seqadmin, 04-04-2024, 09:00 AM
        0 responses
        53 views
        0 likes
        Last Post seqadmin  
        Working...
        X