Go Back   SEQanswers > Applications Forums > RNA Sequencing

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
running Cuffdiff with biological replicates Jane M Bioinformatics 13 07-15-2013 08:55 AM
Biological replicates with cuffdiff, cummeRbund turnersd Bioinformatics 15 11-19-2012 06:59 AM
DESeq without biological replicates (dataset: Marioni et al.) Andrea Apolloni Bioinformatics 3 01-13-2012 05:58 AM
using Cuffdiff with biological replicates Jane M RNA Sequencing 0 09-01-2011 01:42 AM
cuffdiff with biological replicates PFS Bioinformatics 1 06-14-2011 07:51 PM

Thread Tools
Old 03-31-2012, 09:42 AM   #1
Location: St Louis, MO

Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 27
Default many biological replicates - 'traditional' statistics vs Cuffdiff or DESeq/edgeR?

I've read the discussions from Simon Anders and Lior Pachter intensively on these forums and understood them as best I can without extensive graduate training in mathematics or statistics :-) I grasp that correctly modeling the dispersion between biological replicates for a given treatment condition is vital for comparisons of gene expression between different treatment conditions, and that is more challenging for lower numbers of replicates.

Before I was aware of Cuffdiff or DESeq (and actually before Cuffdiff came out), I aligned RNASeq reads using tophat and cufflinks to gain FPKM values on a 'gene-level' basis (I wasn't interested in individual isoforms). I had 6-8 biological replicates per condition, and used a traditional statistics program (Partek Genomics Suite in this case) to determine p-values between conditions and to determine a false discovery rate.

I am in the process of comparing this approach to edgeR / DESeq to see whether comparisons between groups are generally similar. However, is there an 'a prior' statistical/mathematical reason why comparing FPKM-type data (for which, in my hands, the variance between biological replicates is normally distributed AND the variance appears to be higher when the FPKM is lower, reasonably suggesting more variance with lower read counts) between conditions is invalid or misleading?

Thanks in advance for any thoughts.
sjm is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:05 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO