SEQanswers

Go Back   SEQanswers > Bioinformatics > Bioinformatics



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Gene Set Enrichment Analysis uqfgaiti Bioinformatics 1 07-12-2014 03:14 PM
single gene alternative splicing analysis frymor Bioinformatics 0 11-03-2011 12:32 AM
Normalization: DESeq vs. EdgeR with method="RLE" aquila RNA Sequencing 3 04-26-2011 09:00 AM
A scaling normalization method for differential expression analysis of RNA-seq data severin Literature Watch 1 09-09-2010 11:09 PM

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-27-2015, 07:24 AM   #1
simon_seq
Member
 
Location: Cambridge, UK

Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13
Default Using alternative normalization method in DESeq analysis of gene enrichment

I'm using DESeq to identify differentially expressed genes in a next-gen sequencing dataset. (DESeq: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3218662/). In my experiment, the normalization of read counts as implemented by DESeq may not perform as well as anticipated. DESeq uses a 'size factor' to achieve a common scale of count values across samples. The size factor for a given library is defined as the median of the ratios of observed counts to the geometric mean of each corresponding target over all samples.

For my dataset, upper-quartile scaling (using the 75th percentile of data, which often has low read counts, for linear scaling) may improve performance. In my specific case it may even be possible to define a set of genes as an internal scaling standard.

In order for the statistical test for differential gene expression to work correctly, am I allowed to use an alternative method for data normalization?
simon_seq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2015, 10:05 AM   #2
dpryan
Devon Ryan
 
Location: Freiburg, Germany

Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,479
Default

Sure, see the CQN package for an example of a different normalization method that can be used with DESeq2, which you should be using rather than DESeq.
dpryan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2015, 10:54 AM   #3
simon_seq
Member
 
Location: Cambridge, UK

Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13
Default

Thanks a lot for your quick answer!

May I ask, what are the formal constraints when changing normalization methods, such that the basic concept of DESeq(2) still works? Ie. assumption of a negative binomial distribution, Fisher's exact testing? As long as I transform the data linearly and get count values out, I'm fine to transform the data?
simon_seq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2015, 10:59 AM   #4
simon_seq
Member
 
Location: Cambridge, UK

Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13
Default

And to extend my question, would I be fine to apply a LOESS transformation? It appears to me that in some of my conditions, there are very active targets, which then cause a bias in reads. Thus, a LOESS transformation may be relevant. Here are some plots of my data, MA plots given on the right side of the diagonal.

(Here's the link in case the picture doesn't show: https://www.dropbox.com/s/qssqov0hzr...2_v01.png?dl=0 )

Last edited by simon_seq; 08-27-2015 at 11:00 AM. Reason: Link doesn't work.
simon_seq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2015, 11:11 AM   #5
dpryan
Devon Ryan
 
Location: Freiburg, Germany

Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,479
Default

The trick is to not transform the data at all. Leave the data untouched and supply offsets and such to produce the needed normalization. Again, see how the CQN package and DESeq2 interact.
dpryan is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
deseq, differential expression

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 01:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO