SEQanswers

Go Back   SEQanswers > Bioinformatics > Bioinformatics



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
differential expression analysis of microrna generated by NGS platform vcc Bioinformatics 2 03-29-2012 11:08 AM
Differential Expression analysis without replicates polsum Bioinformatics 1 08-05-2011 03:40 AM
RNA-Seq Quantification and Differential Expression Analysis days369 RNA Sequencing 2 04-06-2011 12:24 AM
Differential Expression Analysis Pipeline with Reference pcg Bioinformatics 1 01-27-2011 09:04 AM
Differential expression analysis workflow in Cufflinks anna_vt Bioinformatics 4 12-19-2010 02:04 AM

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-22-2012, 10:17 AM   #1
giorgifm
Member
 
Location: Columbia University Medical Center

Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 35
Thumbs up Differential expression analysis on RPKMs - Contrasts and contrasts of contrasts

Dear all,

I'm looking for a tool (better would be a Bioconductor package) able to perform differential expression analysis on a table of RPKMs. I've seen so far only solutions implementing raw read counts, like DEGSeq, edgeR and BaySeq. And yeah, in this particular case I cannot transform RPKMs back to read counts.

Do you have any idea? Furthermore, a great advantage would be the capability of calculating significance of "contrasts of contrasts" analysis, i.e. of tetrafactorial designs.

E.g. having 4 conditions: WT control, WT treated, mutant control, mutant treated.

Code:
DE1 = WT treated vs. WT control
DE2 = mutant treated vs. mutant control

DE1DE2 = (mutant trated vs. mutant control) vs. (WT treated vs. WT control)
Something like the great limma does for microarrays. But on RNASeq RPKMs.
Thanks a lot for any hint!
giorgifm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2012, 11:23 AM   #2
chadn737
Senior Member
 
Location: US

Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 392
Default

Why can't you extract the raw read counts?
chadn737 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2012, 01:05 AM   #3
peer.b
Junior Member
 
Location: Germany

Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5
Default

It's unfortunately an issue sometimes, since in the beginning RPKM (Mortazavi et al., 2008) were considered a standard and some softwares (e.g. Cufflinks) by default output only FPKM and pairwise condition comparisons. There's an open (more like a closed now) debate on whether one should use RPKM or raw read counts for differential analysis, the latter being the prime choice for statistical reason (see for example the manuals of edgeR and the wiki of this website).
As for your question, given only a table of RPKM, you can try the NOISeq R script (http://bioinfo.cipf.es/noiseq/doku.php?id=tutorial), if you can manage to convince it that your data is already rpkm-normalized. Good luck!
peer.b is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2012, 01:29 AM   #4
Simon Anders
Senior Member
 
Location: Heidelberg, Germany

Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 994
Default

Any valid statistical analysis which only get RPKM values as input will have very little power, because lacking information on whether a certain count value stems from a long gene with many counts or a short gene with few counts, it is bound to assume that all numbers stem from low-count and hence high-variance genes.

I'd be careful with NOISeq, by the way. In the paper on NOISeq, the method is evaluated only on dataset that contain no replicates or only technical replicates, i.e., it is not shown that this method is able to correctly assess biological variability and hence control type-I error rate in a biologically meaningful way.
Simon Anders is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2012, 10:19 PM   #5
dietmar13
Senior Member
 
Location: Vienna

Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 107
Default NOIseq fails

in my hands NOIseq on RAW read counts failed to get significant DE genes called (i.e. only VERY few called), similar to tophat/cuffdiff (only 2 DE genes called) if comparing 12 normal vs 12 colon cancer samples. DESeq, edgeR, BaySeq, SAMseq worked much better...

with edgeR and limma (design matrix) you can analyse your design (wt-mock, wt-treat, mut-mock, mut-treat), but you need raw reads...
dietmar13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2012, 03:59 PM   #6
giorgifm
Member
 
Location: Columbia University Medical Center

Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 35
Default

Thanks everyone for your super-informative answers. I guess I will have to convince my collaborators to move towards raw read counts then.
giorgifm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2013, 10:50 AM   #7
Richard Fox
Junior Member
 
Location: St. Louis, MO

Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1
Default

Check out a recent comparison of methods:

Nookaew et. al. (2012), Nucleic Acids Research, Vol. 40, 10084-10097.

NOISeq does not lack power and compares well with other methods as well as microarrays.

“Although all the methods were in agreement in identifying significant GO terms related to growth (a consequence of the increased specific growth rate during batch cultivations), GO terms known to be relevant during fully respiratory growth are not all in agreement with the different methods. Specifically, edgeR showed some inconsistencies in capturing GO terms associated with fatty acid beta-oxidation terms (as well as DESeq), fatty acid metabolic process and TCA cycle, whereas baySeq weakly identify increased expression of ATP-coupled proton transport and ion transport. Interestingly, the results derived from NOISeq seem to give stronger signals that explain the known differences between batch and chemostat growth better than the results derived from the other methods.”

The authors speculate that edgeR suffers from increased Type I error.
Richard Fox is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 12:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO