Unconfigured Ad

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • beans
    Junior Member
    • Jul 2011
    • 6

    Differential expression from RNA-seq: variation between replicates

    Hello,

    I’m trying to figure out a method for analysing some RNA-seq data (and I’m very new to this so simple wording please!). I have 2 groups, each with 3 replicates. I want to:

    1. assess the variation in expression between 3 replicates, then
    2. assess the differential expression between the 2 groups (pooled data from the 3 replicates), taking the into account the variation between the replicates to minimise false positives.

    Regarding the first point, I was planning to do combinations of pairwise comparisons to generate DE within the 3 reps (using edgeR or DESeq) but I'm unsure how to then use this to refine the pooled data DE – any ideas or any references where this has been done already? (Or (a) am I totally on the wrong track, (b) is it blindingly simple…?)

    Any advice would be greatly appreciated, thanks in advance!
  • husamia
    Member
    • Apr 2010
    • 66

    #2
    I may have some advice. Can you clarify what you want to compare as "differential expression"?
    If you measure expression as read count per mir as I understand to be the case but correct me if I am wrong then you would simply use normalized value per experiment (one sample) then do some type of simple test between the replicates. I did similar thing without replicates. This is one simple easy way that I used but there are many other ways. I was just trying to see if I can find any differences.

    Comment

    • kwatts59
      Member
      • Apr 2011
      • 46

      #3
      Use the cufflinks and cuffdiff software to determine differential expression.
      Here is the link

      Comment

      • chadn737
        Senior Member
        • Jan 2009
        • 392

        #4
        Both edgeR and DESeq are made to work with replicates, so I don't see why you need to do a pairwise comparison of each replicate before looking for differential expression between your two conditions. Just specify which samples are replicates when you enter the data into edgeR and DESeq and you should be fine.

        Comment

        • beans
          Junior Member
          • Jul 2011
          • 6

          #5
          Hi All,

          Thanks very much for your comments - I was hoping it would be fairly simply and that those packages would take replicates into account. It's difficult to anticipate these things first time round while you're waiting fo the data to come in!

          Husamia, in response to your question, I have 3 replicate samples from each of 2 species and I want to assess DE between the individuals of each species to get an idea of what kind of variation occurs within a sample of the population Then I want to assess DE between the 2 species overall to find out which genes are most markedly different, but using the between-replicate variation to minimise false positives. Hope that makes sense. I'm new to the packages that calculate DE and from what I read it seems they calculate DE from pairwise comparisons, hence my thoughts that that was necessary.

          Cheers again,

          Comment

          • husamia
            Member
            • Apr 2010
            • 66

            #6
            Thanks for explaining I like to clarify to myself. Is the reason for the replicates to account for the bias created by the enrichment and other experiment bias? or they are different replicates? I want to clarify this point. I have concern in my data that there may be false positive DE caused by amplification bias. In other words, I am concerned that I may be detecting preferential PCR amplification instead of real expression of certain amplicons by the nature of the enzymatic approach and depending on sequence of amplicons. Just curious thought.

            Comment

            • beans
              Junior Member
              • Jul 2011
              • 6

              #7
              Hi,

              Sorry for the delayed response,I didn't realise there had been another reply to this. The replicates are simply different individuals that we wanted to sequence in order to get an idea of the level of intra-specific variation in gene expression. Unfortunately, this hasn't been possible - the quality of the RNA was such that individuals had to be pooled Maybe next time! I hope your analyses have gone well

              Cheers,
              Beans

              Comment

              Latest Articles

              Collapse

              • SEQadmin2
                Advanced Sequencing Platforms Tackle Neuroscience’s Toughest Genomics Problems
                by SEQadmin2



                Genomics studies in neuroscience face a special challenge due to the brain’s complexity and scarcity of samples. Mapping changes in cell type and state using conventional next-generation sequencing methods remains challenging. Advances in technologies like single-cell sequencing, spatial transcriptomics, and long-read sequencing have opened the door to deeper studies of the brain and diseases like Alzheimer’s, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), and schizophrenia.
                ...
                Yesterday, 11:10 AM
              • SEQadmin2
                Cancer Drug Resistance: The Lingering Barrier to Rising Survival
                by SEQadmin2



                Cancer survival rates have significantly increased in the last few decades in the United States, reaching a combined 70% 5-year survival rate by 2021. Behind this number, there are years of research to find new therapies, drug targets, and early detection methods. But there is one core challenge that keeps slowing down these advances, and it’s about drug resistance.

                There is no single reason why many patients don’t respond to treatment as expected. Cancer is...
                07-08-2026, 05:17 AM
              • GATTACAT
                Reply to Nine Things a Sample Prep Scientist Thinks About Before Sequencing
                by GATTACAT
                Love this - good data definitely starts from good input, and poor input can only give relatively poor data. I particularly like the mention of Nanodrop/absorbance based methods for quantification. It's such a toss up if you'll get an accurate reading or what amounts to a randomly generated number, and a lot of library/sequencing related issues can be traced back to poor quant.
                07-01-2026, 11:43 AM

              ad_right_rmr

              Collapse

              News

              Collapse

              Topics Statistics Last Post
              Started by SEQadmin2, Yesterday, 10:04 AM
              0 responses
              9 views
              0 reactions
              Last Post SEQadmin2  
              Started by SEQadmin2, 07-08-2026, 10:08 AM
              0 responses
              7 views
              0 reactions
              Last Post SEQadmin2  
              Started by SEQadmin2, 07-07-2026, 11:05 AM
              0 responses
              12 views
              0 reactions
              Last Post SEQadmin2  
              Started by SEQadmin2, 07-02-2026, 11:08 AM
              0 responses
              31 views
              0 reactions
              Last Post SEQadmin2  
              Working...