I guess I mostly am asking the DESeq team, ie. Simon Anders, but wanted to put this out there for others doing similar experiments.
I want to make a series of pair-wise comparisons, A vs. B, A vs. C, A vs. D, etc. I have 2 replicates per time point. When measuring dispersion using DEseq, is it more sound to do so off of the full count table (a1 a2 b1 b2 c1 c2...) or just off of the data you are looking at for that particular test (a1 a2 c1 c2)?
Having set it up both ways, I get more genes above any given padj cutoff if I measure dispersion on the more limited set, but is this being sloppy?
Somewhat relatedly, if my dispersion graph is really ugly (many points are really far from the red line), but I am still getting tons of genes with padj <0.05, can I assume that the differences that I am seeing are statistically valid and also probably real and that I am just missing smaller changes that are hidden by the noise of my data, or are even my statistically significant changes suspect?
Thanks,
Anna
-
Many organizations study rare diseases, but few have a mission as impactful as Rady Children’s Institute for Genomic Medicine (RCIGM). “We are all about changing outcomes for children,” explained Dr. Stephen Kingsmore, President and CEO of the group. The institute’s initial goal was to provide rapid diagnoses for critically ill children and shorten their diagnostic odyssey, a term used to describe the long and arduous process it takes patients to obtain an accurate...12-16-2024, 07:57 AM -
Innovations in next-generation sequencing technologies and techniques are driving more precise and comprehensive exploration of complex biological systems. Current advancements include improved accessibility for long-read sequencing and significant progress in single-cell and 3D genomics. This article explores some of the most impactful developments in the field over the past year.
Long-Read Sequencing
Long-read sequencing has seen remarkable advancements,...12-02-2024, 01:49 PM