Ah, yes, that's correct. I always forget that it uses a "." rather than ":".
Seqanswers Leaderboard Ad
Collapse
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
-
Sorry to be so picky, but I still have some difficulties understanding it, even if it might not seems this way.
What would be the difference between the two models:
Code:~condition + stimulation
Code:~condition + stimulation + condition:stimulation
I know what the user guide says about interactions, but to be honest, I'm not sure what it really means.
Is there a way to simplify it better?
my try would be this:
the first model try to identify the differences in the two groups of stimulation, buy accounting for the differences in the condition groups (this is reformulating the user guide). Does it means, that I sort of trying to discard all changes happening due to conditions and concentrate only on the effect causes by the stimulation?
the second model adds an interaction. according to the user guide, it means that i am trying to calculate the differences of one condition (here my term condition) based on the second condition (here my term stimulation)?
Does this means here that I'm trying to see the differences happening in my samples between the WT and KO based on the stimulation changes?
This doesn't sound very simplified, but maybe someone can do it better
Comment
-
No worries about being picky, this is important to get correct
This boils down to, "so what's an interaction anyway?". Let's take your experiment as the example and consider the design:
Code:~condition + stimulation
But suppose the effect due to knocking out some gene is dependent upon stimulation (e.g., the stimulation activates a pathway that we've partly inactivated due to the knockout). We then would have what's referred to as an interaction between the stimulation and the condition. So we would no longer expect the knockout and stimulated group to have a value of 6, but something else entirely. The resulting interaction coefficient tells you the fold change from what you would expect if the knockout and stimulation effect don't interfere with each other (or have a synergistic effect). It could well be the case that instead of this group having a value of 6 we instead see no change from the baseline WT unstimulated group, so the value is 1, meaning that the fit coefficient is 1/6. Interactions always describe the additional change on top of what would be expected if your various conditions acted independently.
Hope that helps.
Comment
-
Yes, it helps a lot. I think I start understanding it.
I have another question about the colData. Does the order of the samples here must be the same as in the count table.
I am asking because I have done the analysis mentioned above and found no DE genes. When I than changed the colData file to that:
Code:name condition stimulation Vav_KO_1 KO no Vav_KO_2 KO no Vav_KO_5 KO no Vav_KO_2_C KO yes Vav_KO_4_C KO yes Vav_KO_5_C KO yes Vav_WT_1 wildtype no Vav_WT_2 wildtype no Vav_WT_4 wildtype no Vav_WT_4_C wildtype yes Vav_WT_1_C wildtype yes Vav_WT_2_C wildtype yes
the sample names was not changed and is identical to the column names of the count table.
Now I also get a different last comparison possiblity:
Code:> resultsNames(dds) [1] "Intercept" "condition_wildtype_vs_KO" [3] "stimulation_yes_vs_no" "conditionwildtype.stimulation[B]yes[/B]"
Is there an explanation for this kind of changes?
thanks in advance
Comment
-
That's...weird. I don't have a good explanation for that. Well, actually I don't know why you got "Curdlan" as part of a coefficient name before given that it wasn't in the original colData. The coefficient names at least make sense this time. Given that, my only guess is that something went wonky previously.
Comment
-
Originally posted by dpryan View PostNo worries about being picky, this is important to get correct
But suppose the effect due to knocking out some gene is dependent upon stimulation (e.g., the stimulation activates a pathway that we've partly inactivated due to the knockout). We then would have what's referred to as an interaction between the stimulation and the condition. So we would no longer expect the knockout and stimulated group to have a value of 6, but something else entirely. The resulting interaction coefficient tells you the fold change from what you would expect if the knockout and stimulation effect don't interfere with each other (or have a synergistic effect). It could well be the case that instead of this group having a value of 6 we instead see no change from the baseline WT unstimulated group, so the value is 1, meaning that the fit coefficient is 1/6. Interactions always describe the additional change on top of what would be expected if your various conditions acted independently.
you mentioned, being picky can be a virtue, so I'm being picky again.
I was wondering about my first question for the comparison between the knock-out and the stimulation. I wanted to find the deregulated genes independently from the stimulation effect. What I did was a Wald test between the contrasts KO and wildtype. But with this comparison, I have taken both the stimulated and the non-stimulated samples in one go.
Does it make sense to do it this way, or is it better to take only the not stimulated samples.
I think that for the genes affected by the stimulation, the not-stimulated vs. stimulated samples might cancel each other, but it is a risk.
Taking all samples though gives me a higher statistical power (six instead of only three samples).
But this might also give me genes changing due to the combination of knock-out and stimulation, which I don't want to have in the first question.
What do you think is a better way of doing this analysis?
thanks
Assa
Comment
-
Yes, you'll get slightly better results taking everything at once and using the contrast like you did. The reason for this is simply due to the additional samples being used in dispersion estimation. If you include the interaction term in the design then you won't have that affecting things.
Comment
-
Hi,
Sorry for the resurrection of such old dialogues but I am quite confused.
I was thinking of doing a time-course analysis (as Assa did) having only 1 condition , 4 time points and 3 replicates for each time point. But what Ryan says here "not to use replicates as a factor" is contradictory to the answer that Michael Love gives in this link 4 months ago:
Should I finally consider replicates as a factor in my model or better to forget them?
Thanks for your answer in advance,
EvaLast edited by EVELE; 02-18-2019, 03:34 PM. Reason: First time I sent only the first sentence of my message
Comment
Latest Articles
Collapse
-
by seqadmin
The field of epigenetics has traditionally concentrated more on DNA and how changes like methylation and phosphorylation of histones impact gene expression and regulation. However, our increased understanding of RNA modifications and their importance in cellular processes has led to a rise in epitranscriptomics research. “Epitranscriptomics brings together the concepts of epigenetics and gene expression,” explained Adrien Leger, PhD, Principal Research Scientist on Modified Bases...-
Channel: Articles
Yesterday, 07:01 AM -
-
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...-
Channel: Articles
04-04-2024, 04:25 PM -
ad_right_rmr
Collapse
News
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by seqadmin, 04-11-2024, 12:08 PM
|
0 responses
55 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seqadmin
04-11-2024, 12:08 PM
|
||
Started by seqadmin, 04-10-2024, 10:19 PM
|
0 responses
52 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seqadmin
04-10-2024, 10:19 PM
|
||
Started by seqadmin, 04-10-2024, 09:21 AM
|
0 responses
45 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seqadmin
04-10-2024, 09:21 AM
|
||
Started by seqadmin, 04-04-2024, 09:00 AM
|
0 responses
55 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seqadmin
04-04-2024, 09:00 AM
|
Comment