Unconfigured Ad

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • sazz
    Member
    • Oct 2012
    • 28

    Cuffdiff p-value problem

    Hello all,

    I run the Tuxedo pipeline to find differentially expressed genes btw 2 phenotypes (3 replicates for each) but in the end I get p-values limited to "0.00005" in CuffDiff output, nothing smaller; 1264 of 23779 genes (human) have that limitation so this is not their actual p-value, most of them should be much more significant. I have the latest version of CuffDiff (2.1.1). In the older versions I didn't have such a problem.

    I don't know what I miss but I appreciate if you can help.
  • Gus
    Member
    • Dec 2009
    • 29

    #2
    That is crazy because I was logging on to ask this exact question.

    I am doing the same experiment in four species and i do not have the problem with all species. I will attach links to the resulting volcano plots from a species with the problem.

    Can anyone PLEASE offer explanations I am at a loss...

    In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
    --Stephen Jay Gould

    Comment

    • Gus
      Member
      • Dec 2009
      • 29

      #3
      OK i got so excited that someone was asking the same thing as me that I neglected to do a search first...

      Upon searching, perhaps the answer is in this thread: http://seqanswers.com/forums/showthr...fdiff+p-values

      Sounds like it is due to a change in the way cuffdiff does its p-values by default (now through empirical sampling? ).

      Can others confirm this?

      I will need to go back and see which version I used for the species that does not show this cut off.

      Gus


      PS: I checked my records and this is indeed the case. The species that doe snot show the cutoff was run with 2.0.2.
      Last edited by Gus; 07-20-2013, 11:39 AM. Reason: answered a question posed in original response.
      In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
      --Stephen Jay Gould

      Comment

      • sazz
        Member
        • Oct 2012
        • 28

        #4
        Thanks Gus, I am a little relieved.

        Comment

        Latest Articles

        Collapse

        • SEQadmin2
          Advanced Sequencing Platforms Tackle Neuroscience’s Toughest Genomics Problems
          by SEQadmin2



          Genomics studies in neuroscience face a special challenge due to the brain’s complexity and scarcity of samples. Mapping changes in cell type and state using conventional next-generation sequencing methods remains challenging. Advances in technologies like single-cell sequencing, spatial transcriptomics, and long-read sequencing have opened the door to deeper studies of the brain and diseases like Alzheimer’s, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), and schizophrenia.
          ...
          07-09-2026, 11:10 AM
        • SEQadmin2
          Cancer Drug Resistance: The Lingering Barrier to Rising Survival
          by SEQadmin2



          Cancer survival rates have significantly increased in the last few decades in the United States, reaching a combined 70% 5-year survival rate by 2021. Behind this number, there are years of research to find new therapies, drug targets, and early detection methods. But there is one core challenge that keeps slowing down these advances, and it’s about drug resistance.

          There is no single reason why many patients don’t respond to treatment as expected. Cancer is...
          07-08-2026, 05:17 AM
        • GATTACAT
          Reply to Nine Things a Sample Prep Scientist Thinks About Before Sequencing
          by GATTACAT
          Love this - good data definitely starts from good input, and poor input can only give relatively poor data. I particularly like the mention of Nanodrop/absorbance based methods for quantification. It's such a toss up if you'll get an accurate reading or what amounts to a randomly generated number, and a lot of library/sequencing related issues can be traced back to poor quant.
          07-01-2026, 11:43 AM

        ad_right_rmr

        Collapse

        News

        Collapse

        Topics Statistics Last Post
        Started by SEQadmin2, Today, 10:26 AM
        0 responses
        10 views
        0 reactions
        Last Post SEQadmin2  
        Started by SEQadmin2, 07-09-2026, 10:04 AM
        0 responses
        25 views
        0 reactions
        Last Post SEQadmin2  
        Started by SEQadmin2, 07-08-2026, 10:08 AM
        0 responses
        16 views
        0 reactions
        Last Post SEQadmin2  
        Started by SEQadmin2, 07-07-2026, 11:05 AM
        0 responses
        33 views
        0 reactions
        Last Post SEQadmin2  
        Working...