Unconfigured Ad

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • super0925
    Senior Member
    • Feb 2014
    • 206

    #61
    Originally posted by dpryan View Post
    Have a look at my answer over on biostars to a similar question. That should tell you most of what you want to know (particularly given the included links and replies from others).
    Hi dpryan
    If I only have one sample in each condition, how do I do the DE analysis?
    Cause I think I need at least 2 replicates in each condition and then doing the DE statistical by DESeq/edgeR/Cuffdiff. Am I right?

    If I don't run Cufflinks but running Htseq-counts,
    Could I use this kind of method to measure it?

    gene1: (a1/s1)-(a2/s2)

    a1 is the counts (i.e. the number of mapped reads) of this gene in sample1
    s1 is the total mapped reads in sample 1
    a2 is the counts (i.e. the number of mapped reads) of this gene in sample2
    s2 is the total mapped reads in sample 2

    Or if I use FPKM calculated by Cifflinks to measure it ? i.e. FPKM1-FPKM2?

    Comment

    • dpryan
      Devon Ryan
      • Jul 2011
      • 3478

      #62
      You don't do a DE analysis without replicates. The best you can do is look at the ranked fold-changes (have a look at the GFold package, which tries to do this in a somewhat more useful way). Personally, I wouldn't waste my time without good reason.

      Comment

      • Zapages
        Member
        • Oct 2012
        • 98

        #63
        Originally posted by dpryan View Post
        You don't do a DE analysis without replicates. The best you can do is look at the ranked fold-changes (have a look at the GFold package, which tries to do this in a somewhat more useful way). Personally, I wouldn't waste my time without good reason.
        I would recommend Gfold as well. Also I made Wrapper/GUI for it on iPlant Collaborative. I am going to test it out this or next week to see if it works properly on it.

        Comment

        • super0925
          Senior Member
          • Feb 2014
          • 206

          #64
          Originally posted by Zapages View Post
          I would recommend Gfold as well. Also I made Wrapper/GUI for it on iPlant Collaborative. I am going to test it out this or next week to see if it works properly on it.
          Hi, dpryan and zapages, thank you both !

          Comment

          • super0925
            Senior Member
            • Feb 2014
            • 206

            #65
            Originally posted by dpryan View Post
            You don't do a DE analysis without replicates. The best you can do is look at the ranked fold-changes (have a look at the GFold package, which tries to do this in a somewhat more useful way). Personally, I wouldn't waste my time without good reason.
            I found that the ranking of DE genes list (e.g. Top 1000 up/down regulated genes) are different in DESeq,edgeR,Cuffdiff,baySeq,...... (Of course they are different), now including this Gfold method, which is not reply on P-value but ''generalized fold change''.
            How do I final make the decision by ranking Significant genes? Each methods has their advantage and claimed their most reliable.

            I remember last time I told you I am thinking to calculate the overlap over Top 1000 genes list among the 3-5 methods. And then decide to use the method with biggest overlap. Am I right? Or is this measurement too rude and naive ?Or any other methods from your suggestion?
            Last edited by super0925; 04-01-2014, 07:27 AM.

            Comment

            • dpryan
              Devon Ryan
              • Jul 2011
              • 3478

              #66
              It doesn't matter which one you pick, they'll all be only vaguely meaningful at best...that's the problem with not having replicates.

              Comment

              • super0925
                Senior Member
                • Feb 2014
                • 206

                #67
                Originally posted by dpryan View Post
                It doesn't matter which one you pick, they'll all be only vaguely meaningful at best...that's the problem with not having replicates.
                Sorry, I didn't say it clearly, what I mean is the real dataset with replicate. Of course the ranking of TOP1000 DE genes are different from cuffdiff/Deseq/edgeR/Gfold/limma...... So I said do I need to do 3-5 simultaneously and then compare the overlap? The method with the biggest overlap is the best one? Cheers.

                Comment

                • dpryan
                  Devon Ryan
                  • Jul 2011
                  • 3478

                  #68
                  If you have replicates then there's no point in using GFold, so just exclude it. Aside from that, the best way to go forward is to make a relatively small list of candidates that aren't shared between the different packages and then see if they validate using other means (qPCR or whatever you prefer). Then you have an idea which package is better modeling your particular dataset. Try to pick candidates with relatively similar characteristics (i.e., fold-change and adjusted p-value) just to make it a more apples-to-apples comparison.

                  BTW, usually the most significant genes overlap pretty heavily among the various tools. It's normally at the margins of significance where you see differences (unsurprisingly).

                  Comment

                  • nbahlis
                    Member
                    • May 2013
                    • 25

                    #69
                    DEseq and Heatmap

                    Can someone please advise what is the best script to create a heatmap with only differentially expressed genes? I've tried the script below and I am not sure this is correct way to do it

                    > select <- order(p.adjust( res$pvalue[keep], method="BH" ) < .1 )
                    > heatmap.2( assay(rld) [ select, ], scale="row", cexRow=0.5, cexCol=0.75,
                    + trace="none", dendrogram="column",
                    + col = rev(heat.colors(25)))

                    thank you

                    Comment

                    • dpryan
                      Devon Ryan
                      • Jul 2011
                      • 3478

                      #70
                      The general concept of that seems reasonable. My only concern would be if you're first subsetting "res$pvalue" and if you haven't already done this with "rld" (or the object you used to make it" then the "select" indices may not be comparable. Otherwise, that seems reasonable.

                      Comment

                      • nbahlis
                        Member
                        • May 2013
                        • 25

                        #71
                        thank you Ryan, do you mean I need to transform my data with rld before I select a subset?

                        Comment

                        • dpryan
                          Devon Ryan
                          • Jul 2011
                          • 3478

                          #72
                          No, my concern is whether the genes from " res$pvalue[keep]" correspond to those from "assay(rld)" or not, since in one case you're subsetting an object and the other not. Without knowing what you did in the previous steps, it's impossible to say of the indices in "select" are appropriate or not. Presumably you did things such that this makes sense, but this is unclear.

                          Comment

                          • super0925
                            Senior Member
                            • Feb 2014
                            • 206

                            #73
                            Originally posted by dpryan View Post
                            You don't do a DE analysis without replicates. The best you can do is look at the ranked fold-changes (have a look at the GFold package, which tries to do this in a somewhat more useful way). Personally, I wouldn't waste my time without good reason.
                            I have tried Gfold on my dataset . It seems works well. However, my samples are strand. I use strand (Tophat setting) and unstrand (the defaulf of Tophat) to map my samples and get the sam/bam file separately. However, the Top 100 genes ranking by GFold is almost same between strand and unstrand.Is it normal?

                            Comment

                            • dpryan
                              Devon Ryan
                              • Jul 2011
                              • 3478

                              #74
                              That would seem normal to me. If you used a stranded protocol then all of the counts and mappings should be very similar (they'd be identical in a perfect world).

                              Comment

                              • nbahlis
                                Member
                                • May 2013
                                • 25

                                #75
                                Hi Ryan. The script I used does not seem to filter the genes based on padj < 0.1. I have followed the DESeq2 vignette and the only change I am introducing is the selection step for the genes based on the padj

                                Comment

                                Latest Articles

                                Collapse

                                • SEQadmin2
                                  Nine Things a Sample Prep Scientist Thinks About Before Sequencing
                                  by SEQadmin2


                                  I’m not a sequencing expert. I’m a purification scientist who uses NGS to evaluate workflows my group develops. With this perspective, we think about the sample first and the NGS workflow second. The sequencer is an exceptionally honest reporter, but it can only report on what you give it, so whether you get clean, interpretable data from an NGS workflow is largely determined before you begin.

                                  Here are nine questions we think about, in roughly the order they matter, before...
                                  06-18-2026, 07:11 AM
                                • SEQadmin2
                                  From Collection to Sequencing: Why Sample Preparation and Preservation Define Sequencing Data
                                  by SEQadmin2


                                  Data variability is still an issue in sequencing technologies despite the advances in reproducibility and accuracy of these platforms. But the problem does not originate in the sequencing itself, but in the previous steps, before the sample reaches the sequencer.


                                  The first step is collection, followed by preservation and sample preparation for analysis. Most scientists overlook those steps, but not being careful might just be skewing the experiment’s results.
                                  ...
                                  06-02-2026, 10:05 AM

                                ad_right_rmr

                                Collapse

                                News

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by SEQadmin2, 06-26-2026, 11:10 AM
                                0 responses
                                12 views
                                0 reactions
                                Last Post SEQadmin2  
                                Started by SEQadmin2, 06-17-2026, 06:09 AM
                                0 responses
                                48 views
                                0 reactions
                                Last Post SEQadmin2  
                                Started by SEQadmin2, 06-09-2026, 11:58 AM
                                0 responses
                                106 views
                                0 reactions
                                Last Post SEQadmin2  
                                Started by SEQadmin2, 06-05-2026, 10:09 AM
                                0 responses
                                125 views
                                0 reactions
                                Last Post SEQadmin2  
                                Working...