Unconfigured Ad

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • bliu1
    Junior Member
    • Feb 2011
    • 3

    #1

    very different numbers of differentially expressed genes by DESeq

    Hi, I am using DES-seq to identify the DE genes from mouse RNA-seq datasets. When I used the estimateDispersions( cds ), only less than 20 genes were identified. I then change the option setting as estimateDispersions( cds, sharingMode=”fit-only” ), I got about 1000 genes. Could someone help me why the results are so different? Are they really meaningful? By the way, I only got about 10 genes when cuffdiff() was used. The mapping files (bam) were generated by tophat2 and processed by htseq-count for the countTable. I had 5 biological replicates for samples and 3 biological replicates for controls. Thanks a lot.
  • chadn737
    Senior Member
    • Jan 2009
    • 392

    #2
    Read the vignette and other information:

    After the empirical dispersion values have been computed for each gene, a dispersion-mean relationship is fitted for sharing information across genes in order to reduce variability of the dispersion estimates. After that, for each gene, we have two values: the empirical value (derived only from this gene's data), and the fitted value (i.e., the dispersion value typical for genes with an average expression similar to those of this gene). The sharingMode argument specifies which of these two values will be written to the featureData's disp_ columns and hence will be used by the functions nbinomTest and fitNbinomGLMs.

    fit-only - use only the fitted value, i.e., the empirical value is used only as input to the fitting, and then ignored. Use this only with very few replicates, and when you are not too concerned about false positives from dispersion outliers, i.e. genes with an unusually high variability.

    maximum - take the maximum of the two values. This is the conservative or prudent choice, recommended once you have at least three or four replicates and maybe even with only two replicates.

    gene-est-only - No fitting or sharing, use only the empirical value. This method is preferable when the number of replicates is large and the empirical dispersion values are sufficiently reliable. If the number of replicates is small, this option may lead to many cases where the dispersion of a gene is accidentally underestimated and a false positive arises in the subsequent testing.


    The default I believe is "maximum". Using the "fit-only" argument increases the number of false positives.

    You have 3 and 5 replicates. Therefore you should stick to "maximum". The increased number of DE genes you get from "fit-only" are most likely all false positives.
    Last edited by chadn737; 08-22-2012, 08:09 AM.

    Comment

    • bliu1
      Junior Member
      • Feb 2011
      • 3

      #3
      Originally posted by chadn737 View Post
      Read the vignette and other information:

      After the empirical dispersion values have been computed for each gene, a dispersion-mean relationship is fitted for sharing information across genes in order to reduce variability of the dispersion estimates. After that, for each gene, we have two values: the empirical value (derived only from this gene's data), and the fitted value (i.e., the dispersion value typical for genes with an average expression similar to those of this gene). The sharingMode argument specifies which of these two values will be written to the featureData's disp_ columns and hence will be used by the functions nbinomTest and fitNbinomGLMs.

      fit-only - use only the fitted value, i.e., the empirical value is used only as input to the fitting, and then ignored. Use this only with very few replicates, and when you are not too concerned about false positives from dispersion outliers, i.e. genes with an unusually high variability.

      maximum - take the maximum of the two values. This is the conservative or prudent choice, recommended once you have at least three or four replicates and maybe even with only two replicates.

      gene-est-only - No fitting or sharing, use only the empirical value. This method is preferable when the number of replicates is large and the empirical dispersion values are sufficiently reliable. If the number of replicates is small, this option may lead to many cases where the dispersion of a gene is accidentally underestimated and a false positive arises in the subsequent testing.


      The default I believe is "maximum". Using the "fit-only" argument increases the number of false positives.

      You have 3 and 5 replicates. Therefore you should stick to "maximum". The increased number of DE genes you get from "fit-only" are most likely all false positives.
      Thanks a lot for your reply. You are right fit-only potentially incease the number of false positive. however, I didn't expect the difference was so big.
      I also applied same analysis to those 5 replicated samples with another 5 replicate samples in different biological conditions. With the default setting, I got zero significant DE gene. I got about 700 genes with the setting changed to fit-only. I am attaching a graphic for the estimated dispersions. Is it in very high variability? so, it could justify the fit-only usage? Thanks.
      Attached Files

      Comment

      Latest Articles

      Collapse

      • SEQadmin2
        16S/ITS Profiling vs. Shotgun Metagenomics: What Changes in Your Workflow?
        by SEQadmin2




        NGS has revolutionized clinical microbiology by offering new ways to identify and surveil pathogens without prior knowledge of the target. One popular approach is 16S rRNA and ITS amplicon sequencing, which targets specific microbial markers. But studies are increasingly incorporating shotgun metagenomics, a technique that sequences all DNA from a sample without targeting specific microbial markers. This approach allows more detailed taxonomic classification, detection...
        Today, 06:46 AM
      • SEQadmin2
        Multiomic Liquid Biopsy: What DNA/RNA Panels Reveal That DNA Alone Can’t
        by SEQadmin2



        Tumors contain complex mixtures of cell populations that evolve in response to treatment and host-specific factors. Tissue biopsies provide only static snapshots of a tumor’s state. But what if we could follow that evolution over time using a minimally invasive technique?

        Liquid biopsies can detect tumor-derived material circulating in the bloodstream, providing a way to study treatment response, detect emerging resistance, and discover new biomarkers. Circulating
        ...
        10-14-2026, 09:55 AM

      ad_right_rmr

      Collapse

      News

      Collapse

      Topics Statistics Last Post
      Started by SEQadmin2, 10-28-2026, 09:57 AM
      0 responses
      22 views
      0 reactions
      Last Post SEQadmin2  
      Started by SEQadmin2, 10-28-2026, 09:51 AM
      0 responses
      14 views
      0 reactions
      Last Post SEQadmin2  
      Started by SEQadmin2, 10-22-2026, 11:13 AM
      0 responses
      68 views
      0 reactions
      Last Post SEQadmin2  
      Started by SEQadmin2, 10-22-2026, 10:48 AM
      0 responses
      48 views
      0 reactions
      Last Post SEQadmin2  
      Working...