SEQanswers

Go Back   SEQanswers > Bioinformatics > Bioinformatics



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
RPKM vs Fold Change ppm Bioinformatics 4 05-06-2014 07:49 AM
Log fold change Erwan Bioinformatics 3 03-25-2014 05:05 AM
Standardized Fold Change dbaud Introductions 5 01-27-2014 10:47 AM
fold change value-cuffdiff madsaan Bioinformatics 4 02-10-2011 06:51 AM

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-18-2016, 10:00 AM   #1
hubertofliege
Junior Member
 
Location: Los Angeles

Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 4
Default Is Fold Change reliable? Does anyone use Characteristic Direction?

I'm taking a course on Coursera taught by Avi Ma'ayan. In one module, a member of his lab promotes an alternative method of determining differential expression called "Characteristic Direction". He then plots several comparisons of success rate of different methods. On his charts, fold change looks terrible.

Is this reliable? I don't see anyone else using this method he suggests, "Characteristic Direction". Can anyone set me straight?

https://bmcbioinformatics.biomedcent...471-2105-15-79

Thanks
hubertofliege is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2016, 11:37 AM   #2
dpryan
Devon Ryan
 
Location: Freiburg, Germany

Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,480
Default

The fact that it relies on covariance matrices reminds me of WGCNA. In practice, the normal methods are reliable enough and are somewhat easier to understand and debug than something that's based on LDA. There's also the reality that the L1 regularization is probably going to get rid of a LOT of genes that inevitably someone is going to ask about those. There's also the fact that if one uses the normal methods then the whole problem is no longer ill posed...
dpryan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2016, 11:30 PM   #3
dariober
Senior Member
 
Location: Cambridge, UK

Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 311
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hubertofliege View Post
I don't see anyone else using this method
In addition to Devon's insightful answer, I would add a couple of possible reasons:

* limma, edger and DESeq have been used very extensively and they have very good reputation (well deserved). Their documentation is great and questions about their usage gets answered quickly on mailing lists. For these reasons It's difficult for a new method to occupy their niche "just" by promising slightly better sensitivity and at the cost of what Devon points out.

* It seems to me that the characteristic direction method at the moment can cope only with two conditions, one vs another like a t-test. limma, edger and DESeq can easily accommodate more complex designs.
dariober is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
differential expression, fold change

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 05:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO