SEQanswers

Go Back   SEQanswers > Bioinformatics > Bioinformatics



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
DESeq2 multifactorial design sisterdot RNA Sequencing 2 11-09-2014 11:33 AM
DESeq2 multifactorial design Erinyes Bioinformatics 5 09-19-2014 08:32 AM
Deseq2 design Wei-HD Bioinformatics 11 09-04-2014 11:13 AM
Paired design versus unpaired design in DESeq2 KristenC RNA Sequencing 1 05-29-2014 11:05 AM
non balanced design in DESeq2 libro.s Bioinformatics 1 01-10-2014 05:10 AM

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-17-2014, 06:04 AM   #1
youssefd
Junior Member
 
Location: Belgium

Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4
Default Unbalanced block design analysis with DESeq2

Hello,

I have RNAseq samples from 11 Patients. For each patient
the samples were taken from two difference locations (Ileum and Caecum)
and had two different inflammation status at those locations.
However, the design is not balanced as I do not have 4 samples for each patient.
Below is a description of the dataset

Code:
1   Caecum     NI
1    Ileum     NI
3   Caecum      I
3    Ileum     NI
4    Ileum      I
5   Caecum     NI
5   Caecum      I
5   Caecum     NI
6    Ileum      I
6   Caecum      I
7   Caecum     NI
7    Ileum      I
8    Ileum     NI
8    Ileum      I
9    Ileum     NI
9    Ileum      I
9   Caecum      I
10    Ileum     NI
10   Caecum     NI
12    Ileum     NI
12   Caecum     NI
14    Ileum     NI
14    Ileum      I
14    Ileum      I

I am interested in testing if there is a difference between the Location in general, the Status in general,
the Status given the Location and the interaction between status and location.

Therefore, I used DESeq2 with the following design
Code:
~ Patient + Location + Status + Location:Status
From what I understood this will remove the variation due to Patient and test for
the effect of Location, Status and the interaction between the two.

To check the difference for Location in general, I extracted the results of the DESeq analysis
using contrast c("Location", "Ileum", "Caecum"). For Status, I used contrast = c("Status", "NI", "I")

To test for the effect of Status given the Location, I used
contrast = list("LocationCaecum.StatusI", "LocationCaecum.StatusNI").

To check for the effect of Location on Status (i.e. inflamed caecum has additional effect
than Caecum alone and inflammation alone) I used
contrast = list(c("StatusI", "LocationCaecum.StatusI"), c("StatusNI", "LocationCaecum.StatusNI"))

Considering that the high amount of missing samples (or incomplete blocks), does the design
formula I am using make sense? For instance, when comparing on Location, does the pairing have any value
as it will only work for the following 8 samples (Or am I wrong?)

Code:
Sample Location Status
5   Caecum     NI
5   Caecum      I
8    Ileum     NI
8    Ileum      I
9    Ileum     NI
9    Ileum      I
14   Ileum     NI
14   Ileum      I
And is it OK to use the whole dataset for these tests or it is better to subset it first
then do a DESeq2 analysis for each case separately. For example select all NI samples, then compare them between Ileum and Caecum with the design below

Code:
design = formula(~ Patient + Status)

Thank you very much in advance,
Youssef
youssefd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2014, 06:36 AM   #2
dpryan
Devon Ryan
 
Location: Freiburg, Germany

Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,480
Default

Your model (~ Patient + Location + Status + Location:Status) has full rank, so it should work in general. You can drop at least patient #4, since it adds nothing.

Edit: BTW, make sure that "patient" is a factor (and reset the levels if you remove patient #4).
dpryan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2015, 05:35 AM   #3
youssefd
Junior Member
 
Location: Belgium

Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4
Default

Hi,

I have analyzed the samples according to Devon's recommendation and everything went well without any error messages.

However, in the results, I do not understand why the interaction effect of Location and Status gives nearly the exact opposite log fold change.
Is this something normal or it indicates something wrong with the analysis?

Could it indicate a mislabeling of the samples? I am suspecting this already from the PCA plot of VST values.




Below is the relevant part of the code I used, starting from a SummarizedExperiment.

Code:
# Remove sample 4
se <- se[, colnames(se) != "SA4B4"]
se$SampleID <- factor(se$SampleID)
se$Patient <- factor(se$Patient)

# relevel: put NI and Ileum as base level
se$Status <- relevel(se$Status, "NI")
se$Location <- relevel(se$Location, "Ileum")

# create a DEseq dataset
dds <- DESeqDataSet(se = se, design = formula(~ Patient + Location + Status + Location:Status)) 
# run analysis
dds <- DESeq(dds)

# extract results 

# Test the hypothesis that here is no gene expression difference between Caecum and Ileum
results(dds, contrast=c("Location", "Caecum", "Ileum"))

# Test the hypothesis that here is no gene expression difference between I and NI 
results(dds, contrast=c("Status", "I", "NI"))

# Interaction effect between Caecum and Status
results(dds, contrast=list("LocationCaecum.StatusI", "LocationCaecum.StatusNI"))

# Interaction effect between Ileum and Status (The result of this contrast if the opposite of the contrast above)
results(dds, contrast=list("LocationIleum.StatusI", "LocationIleum.StatusNI"))

# Test the hypothesis that here is no gene expression difference between I and NI in Caecum
results(dds, contrast=list(c("StatusI", "LocationCaecum.StatusI"), c("StatusNI", "LocationCaecum.StatusNI")))

# Test the hypothesis that here is no gene expression difference between I and NI in Ileum
results(dds, contrast = list(c("StatusI", "LocationIleum.StatusI"), c("StatusNI", "LocationIleum.StatusNI")))
And below is the coefficients for the first 6 genes

Code:
head(coef(dds)[, 12:19])
DataFrame with 6 rows and 8 columns
                LocationIleum LocationCaecum    StatusNI     StatusI
                    <numeric>      <numeric>   <numeric>   <numeric>
ENSG00000000003  -0.137034259   0.1468754138 -0.06881193  0.07865309
ENSG00000000005  -0.483682079   0.4866318563 -0.08784116  0.09079094
ENSG00000000419   0.008710795   0.0003770367 -0.02530449  0.03439232
ENSG00000000457   0.121583429  -0.1132622163 -0.10059046  0.10891168
ENSG00000000460  -0.080019422   0.0865712307  0.11134169 -0.10478988
ENSG00000000938  -0.002435431   0.0101981947 -0.49175965  0.49952241
                LocationIleum.StatusNI LocationCaecum.StatusNI
                             <numeric>               <numeric>
ENSG00000000003            -0.11392008              0.11334093
ENSG00000000005            -0.42676013              0.42602082
ENSG00000000419            -0.09053654              0.09032357
ENSG00000000457             0.02507584             -0.02592245
ENSG00000000460            -0.14335772              0.14429482
ENSG00000000938             0.17662933             -0.18076818
                LocationIleum.StatusI LocationCaecum.StatusI
                            <numeric>              <numeric>
ENSG00000000003            0.11276674            -0.11210476
ENSG00000000005            0.42268926            -0.42192512
ENSG00000000419            0.09060986            -0.09032040
ENSG00000000457           -0.02405254             0.02496919
ENSG00000000460            0.14268424            -0.14356620
ENSG00000000938           -0.17664982             0.18085401
any help on this would be appreciated
Thanks in advance,
Youssef
youssefd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2015, 05:49 AM   #4
youssefd
Junior Member
 
Location: Belgium

Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4
Default

Below is the failed attachment from previous post
PCA.png
youssefd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2015, 01:04 PM   #5
Simon Anders
Senior Member
 
Location: Heidelberg, Germany

Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 994
Default

Quote:
However, in the results, I do not understand why the interaction effect of Location and Status gives nearly the exact opposite log fold change.
Is this something normal or it indicates something wrong with the analysis?
Short answer: Don't worry, it's all fine. The values are nearly the same because they should be.

Long answer: Well, this will be long...

This is normal, but a bit unfortunate. In DESeq2, we use a non-standard way of setting up model matrices, which we call "extended model matrix".
As explained in more detail in our paper, this is necessary to get proper shrinkage of log-fold-change estimates via ridge penality.

In essence, using your example, and first explaining it without interaction: With standard model matrices, the intercept coefficient would be the expected log expression for a sample from patient level 1, location level 1 (ileum), status level 1 (NI), and then there are coefficients for all other patients, giving the differences in expression if the sample is any of the other patients, and one coefficient for the other location level (caecum) and one the other status level (I). The location coefficient, for example, is the difference between log expression for the other location level (caecum) and the first location level (ileum). For each factor, there is one less coefficient than there are levels.

For extended model matrices, the intercept is the average over all levels rather then the value for all factors being the first level, and then, there is one coefficient for each level of each factor. These coefficients give the difference to the grand average (not to the first level as before).

So, LocationIleum is the difference between ileum samples and the average over all samples, and LocationCaecum is the difference between caecum samples and the average. The difference caecum-vs-illeum is hence the difference between the LocationCaecum and the LocationIlleum coefficient -- and this is what 'results' will calculate for you if you ask for this contrast. If you had a balanced design, these two coefficient would be exactly the same value with opposite signs (because the grand average would be in the middle of both), and half of what the coefficient with standard design matrices would be. As your design is not quite balanced, the values are only about the same, but this is not an issue.

Now, for the interaction: An interaction is a difference of difference: In your case, it is the difference between (a) the difference between I and NI for caecum samples and (b) the difference between I and NI for illeum samples:

interaction = (caecumI - caecumNI) - (illeumI - illeumNI)

You could also ask for other interactions, e.g.

interaction' = (caecumI - illeumI) - (caecumNI - illeumNI)

and besides these two, there are two more ways to arrange the terms in this way. But all four of these are the same and differ only by sign, as you will notice quickly if you write the equations without parantheses. It is hence fully expected that all four interaction coefficients are the same, up to sign. There is only one interaction value -- it's only due to the need for extended design matrices that the same information appears four times. And the lack of balances causes them to differ, but only slightly.

Two final remarks:

- The interaction in my double difference above is twice of what the coefficient says, again because these are the differences to the grand average, not to each other. (Mike: If you read this please double-check whether I'm right.)

- Strictly speaking, we need extended design matrices only if we have more than two levels. Hence, normally, DESeq2 switches to standard design matrices (with so-called sum contrasts) if all factors have only two levels -- to save users from exactly the confusion we have here. Unfortunately, your patient factor has more than two levels, and our code is not smart enough to realize that we need extended coding only this factor.

Last edited by Simon Anders; 03-10-2015 at 01:07 PM.
Simon Anders is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2015, 01:10 PM   #6
Simon Anders
Senior Member
 
Location: Heidelberg, Germany

Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 994
Default

Quote:
Could it indicate a mislabeling of the samples? I am suspecting this already from the PCA plot of VST values.
Yes, your PCA plot shows that something is amiss, but this has nothing to do with what I discussed above.

You need to figure out what the difference between the sample groups to the left and to the right is. Maybe there is some mislabelling, but it would have to be a rather catastrophic one, not just a single mislabelled sample. Or there is some dramaticv batch effect, such that something in the processing was done very differently in the left sample group than in the right one.
Simon Anders is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2015, 03:43 AM   #7
youssefd
Junior Member
 
Location: Belgium

Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4
Default

Thank you for the detailed answer!
youssefd 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 11:56 PM.


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