SEQanswers

Go Back   SEQanswers > Bioinformatics > Bioinformatics



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
1000 genomes RNA-seq datasets lre1234 General 0 10-29-2013 06:04 AM
Script for counting transcripts in RNA-Seq datasets with random n-mers in the adapter Koppology Bioinformatics 0 09-10-2013 09:52 AM
Normalization: merging Illumina GA and HiSeq RNA-seq datasets for DE analysis tejajo Bioinformatics 1 05-29-2013 11:12 AM
What databases are available for RNA-seq datasets? apr RNA Sequencing 15 11-22-2012 12:56 AM
Test datasets for judging RNA-seq alternative splicing detection tools acnoll RNA Sequencing 0 02-10-2010 07:33 AM

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-03-2014, 09:15 AM   #1
id0
Senior Member
 
Location: USA

Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 130
Default Comparing two groups from different RNA-seq datasets

I am interested in comparing samples of type A to samples of type B. There are several RNA-seq datasets in GEO that have either type A or type B, but not both. Is it possible to take samples from two different datasets and compare them? I am guessing most of the observed differences will be between the two labs and not between the two conditions. Is that a reasonable concern? Is there a proper way to deal with that?
id0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2014, 10:09 AM   #2
dpryan
Devon Ryan
 
Location: Freiburg, Germany

Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,480
Default

I'd be very hesitant to do such a comparison due to the uncontrolled batch effect. I suppose you could try to estimate what sort of batch effect exists by looking at the effect between only the B or A samples, but I'm not sure how well that would work in practice.
dpryan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2014, 04:22 AM   #3
TiborNagy
Senior Member
 
Location: Budapest

Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 329
Default

Well, try to download as many type A and type B datasets as you can and use it as technical repeats. A simple hierarchical clustering will show you discepancies.
TiborNagy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2014, 05:36 AM   #4
rskr
Senior Member
 
Location: Santa Fe, NM

Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 250
Default

Since with sequencing, there is much more confidence in the observations, which have a built in noise check during the mapping, and it is necessary to account for the overall differences in reads anyway comparing samples from different labs should be straight forward, unlike micro arrays, where batch effects were known to dominate in some cases requiring a high number of technical replicates.

After taking overall read depth into account, you would have to look for subtle effects like bias in GC annealing temperatures or PCR duplicates. Verifying the results in the lab may be difficult though, as with any meta-analysis.
rskr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2014, 08:26 AM   #5
id0
Senior Member
 
Location: USA

Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 130
Default

Is it worth trying to normalize to housekeeping genes or something similar to that?
id0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2014, 08:33 AM   #6
rskr
Senior Member
 
Location: Santa Fe, NM

Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 250
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by id0 View Post
Is it worth trying to normalize to housekeeping genes or something similar to that?
I wouldn't normalize anything, but using housekeeping genes to verify your statistical model might not be a bad idea.
rskr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2014, 02:24 AM   #7
dpryan
Devon Ryan
 
Location: Freiburg, Germany

Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,480
Default

There are still batch effects in RNAseq, though they're certainly less of an issue than in the microarray days. I happen to be looking at all of the publicly available mouse hippocampus RNAseq datasets at the moment and decided to create a little heatmap of the variance stabilised data, which you can find below. The datasets are color coded the same on the rows and columns to make life easier (there are 160 samples in the heatmap, so the labels are illegible). While there are obvious experimental differences in some of these datasets, there's still a lab batch-effect. Having said that, if you're interested in different organs or something like that then the difference due to that will be vastly greater than the batch-effect, so rskr's advise should hold-up quite well.

BTW, some of the red-colored samples are technical replicates that I never bothered merging, which is why they cluster the way they do.

dpryan 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 09:05 AM.


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