SEQanswers

Go Back   SEQanswers > Bioinformatics > Bioinformatics



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Biological replicates with cuffdiff, cummeRbund turnersd Bioinformatics 15 11-19-2012 05:59 AM
using Cuffdiff with biological replicates Jane M RNA Sequencing 0 09-01-2011 12:42 AM
overdispersion and biological replicates shilez RNA Sequencing 0 08-25-2011 06:10 PM
cuffdiff with biological replicates PFS Bioinformatics 1 06-14-2011 06:51 PM
Inconsistency between biological replicates Nicholas_ Bioinformatics 1 04-06-2011 03:18 AM

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-26-2011, 10:34 AM   #1
shilez
Member
 
Location: Rockville, MD

Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 10
Default overdispersion and biological replicates

Hello,

I really appreciate the work of DESeq and EdgeR for taking the overdispersion into account for biological replicates. However assuming when analyzing tumor samples in a few cancer subgroups, do samples in the same subgroup count as "biological replicates" too? Particularly does the overdispersion model in DESeq statistically sound for a potential more variable samples within a subgroup?
shilez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2011, 06:12 AM   #2
Simon Anders
Senior Member
 
Location: Heidelberg, Germany

Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 994
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shilez View Post
However assuming when analyzing tumor samples in a few cancer subgroups, do samples in the same subgroup count as "biological replicates" too?
Of course.

Quote:
Particularly does the overdispersion model in DESeq statistically sound for a potential more variable samples within a subgroup?
Yes. (Please have a look at the development version, as we made quite some changes.)

This is not to say, however, that you are likely to find much if you compare cancer subgroups and have only a few samples per group. Precisely because the variation is so large you need very many samples to have enough power to find significant differences. Furthermore, pairing samples with normal tissue from the same patient (and using GLMs for the analysis) reduces the variability.

See also this thread: http://seqanswers.com/forums/archive...p/t-11133.html
Simon Anders is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2011, 07:03 AM   #3
shilez
Member
 
Location: Rockville, MD

Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 10
Default

Thanks a lot Simon!
My sample size is 10/subgroup without the normal tissue sequenced from the same individual.

My primary goal is gene expression analysis and transcript expression analysis.
I haven't decided on SNP detection, and fusion gene analysis. Do you think 50bp single read would not be powerful enough to get meaningful results?
shilez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2011, 07:43 AM   #4
Simon Anders
Senior Member
 
Location: Heidelberg, Germany

Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 994
Default

I also realized after posting that the thread I mention talks about SNPs, not gene expression, but the problems are similar.

50bp single-end is definitely sufficient to get good expression values.

I don't know that much about cancer transcriptomics, but 10 samples sounds like a quite small number to me, especially without matched normal tissue, unless the expression differences between your sub-types are quite pronounced. Better have a good look at the literature (also look at microarray studies, the power issues should be quite similar) to see what sample sizes gave good results in the past.
Simon Anders 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 10:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO