Unconfigured Ad

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • nb509
    Junior Member
    • Mar 2011
    • 4

    DESeq: question about with replicates and without any replicates.

    hi
    I have 4 samples, A1,A2,B1,B2.
    two conditions:A,B. each conditions have two replicates.

    when I feed the reads count to the DESeq with replicates and without any replicates, the results vary greatly.

    1.With replicates(A1A2-VS-B1B2), I get about 12000 DEGs(padj<0.1).
    2.Without any replicates(A1-VS-B1), I get about only 200 DEGs(padj<0.1).

    Both of the MA-plot are attached.

    When working without any replicates, it sames that many informations are lossed, even the fold change is very high. Such as the gene "23416":

    HTML Code:
    "id"	"baseMean"	"baseMeanA"	"baseMeanB"	"foldChange"	"log2FoldChange"	"pval"	"padj"
    "without replicates"	292.791254092328	9.3250242940964	576.25748389056	61.7968882135121	5.94946228783961	0.0039474188223427	0.179640885315504
    "with replicates" 285.324742802128        12.0227636114328        558.626721992823        46.4640859661922        5.53804412255897        5.31049903576043e-59    6.44978249349437e-58
    how to explain this?

    PS:
    HTML Code:
    head(countsTable)
    gene	A1	A2	B1	B2
    57573	104	67	233	224
    8563	357	346	110	104
    8434	88	94	94	120
    10309	33	23	11	14
    7652	17	16	1	0
    HTML Code:
    #With replicates
    countsTable <- read.delim("A1A2B1B2",header=TRUE, stringsAsFactors=TRUE, row.names="gene")
    conds <- factor(c( "A", "A","B","B"))
    cds <- newCountDataSet( countsTable, conds )
    cds <- estimateSizeFactors( cds, locfunc=shorth )
    cds <- estimateDispersions( cds )
    res <- nbinomTest( cds, "A", "B" )
    HTML Code:
    #Without any replicates
    cds11 <- cds[,c("A1","B1")]
    cds11 <- estimateDispersions(cds,method="blind", fitType ="local",sharingMode="fit-only") #is right here?
    res112 <- nbinomTest(cds112,"A","B")
    Attached Files
    Last edited by nb509; 10-25-2011, 04:32 AM.
  • Simon Anders
    Senior Member
    • Feb 2010
    • 995

    #3
    I'm not sure what your question is.

    Of course you hardly get any usable results without replicates. This is, after all, why it is so important to have them.

    Comment

    Latest Articles

    Collapse

    • 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
    • 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

    ad_right_rmr

    Collapse

    News

    Collapse

    Topics Statistics Last Post
    Started by SEQadmin2, 07-02-2026, 11:08 AM
    0 responses
    25 views
    0 reactions
    Last Post SEQadmin2  
    Started by SEQadmin2, 06-30-2026, 05:37 AM
    0 responses
    23 views
    0 reactions
    Last Post SEQadmin2  
    Started by SEQadmin2, 06-26-2026, 11:10 AM
    0 responses
    23 views
    0 reactions
    Last Post SEQadmin2  
    Started by SEQadmin2, 06-17-2026, 06:09 AM
    0 responses
    55 views
    0 reactions
    Last Post SEQadmin2  
    Working...