Unconfigured Ad

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • dawe
    Senior Member
    • Apr 2009
    • 258

    cuffdiff and limma, puzzled by the differences

    Hi all, I've been using cuffdiff for a long time but recently I've given limma (voom) a try for RNA-seq data and compared the results.
    The experiment is quite simple, a triplicate in a treatment vs control experiment (60M read tags for each sample). Cuffdiff finds almost 300 DGE, where limma finds almost 900. Almost 100 are in common between the two.
    I have qPCR control for 3 genes and, according to the fold change, both the approaches are concordant with qPCR data. I understand that this is not an extensive test, but it is what can ben typically done within a lab (I mean, check few genes by qPCR). As a matter of facts, the FPKM quantification and the CPM quantification (cuffdiff vs limma) are quite consistent, the statistical test is making all the difference.
    I've tried some pathway analysis to see if the two approaches are similar from the ontologic point of view... well, this is not really the case (there are some overlapping pathways, of course, but all in all the experiments are saying something different)
    I see that others have tried such comparisons, with different results, now I realise I'm stuck in choosing the proper analysis approach... any hint?

    d
  • DZhang
    Senior Member
    • Jun 2010
    • 177

    #2
    Dawe,

    Depending on what's downstream experiment(s), you may focus on the overlapping 100 genes. (I assume you used the same fold/FDR criteria for both programs.) You may also plot them on a volcano plot to see where most of the overlapping occurs. If it occurs at high folder change and/or low FDR, you may tighten your filtering criteria accordingly to improve the overlap pool.

    Best regards,
    Douglas

    Comment

    Latest Articles

    Collapse

    • SEQadmin2
      Nine Things a Sample Prep Scientist Thinks About Before Sequencing
      by SEQadmin2


      I’m not a sequencing expert. I’m a purification scientist who uses NGS to evaluate workflows my group develops. With this perspective, we think about the sample first and the NGS workflow second. The sequencer is an exceptionally honest reporter, but it can only report on what you give it, so whether you get clean, interpretable data from an NGS workflow is largely determined before you begin.

      Here are nine questions we think about, in roughly the order they matter, before...
      06-18-2026, 07:11 AM
    • SEQadmin2
      From Collection to Sequencing: Why Sample Preparation and Preservation Define Sequencing Data
      by SEQadmin2


      Data variability is still an issue in sequencing technologies despite the advances in reproducibility and accuracy of these platforms. But the problem does not originate in the sequencing itself, but in the previous steps, before the sample reaches the sequencer.


      The first step is collection, followed by preservation and sample preparation for analysis. Most scientists overlook those steps, but not being careful might just be skewing the experiment’s results.
      ...
      06-02-2026, 10:05 AM

    ad_right_rmr

    Collapse

    News

    Collapse

    Topics Statistics Last Post
    Started by SEQadmin2, Yesterday, 11:10 AM
    0 responses
    8 views
    0 reactions
    Last Post SEQadmin2  
    Started by SEQadmin2, 06-17-2026, 06:09 AM
    0 responses
    43 views
    0 reactions
    Last Post SEQadmin2  
    Started by SEQadmin2, 06-09-2026, 11:58 AM
    0 responses
    104 views
    0 reactions
    Last Post SEQadmin2  
    Started by SEQadmin2, 06-05-2026, 10:09 AM
    0 responses
    125 views
    0 reactions
    Last Post SEQadmin2  
    Working...