Unconfigured Ad

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • sjeschonek
    Junior Member
    • Feb 2014
    • 9

    RIP-Seq data analysis -- unsure which #'s to compare!

    Hello SEQAnswers -- I'm hoping you can provide some insight.

    We recently performed a RIP-seq experiment in our lab and I'm a bit unsure about how best to analyze the results. We are very new to RNA seq and any advice would be helpful.

    We are essentially looking for the overlap of RNAs between two RIPs, minus any background against an IgG control.

    For example, each experiment contained:
    IP with Antibody-A beads
    IP with Antibody-B beads
    IP with IgG beads

    We are interested in those genes that appear in both A and B IPs but not in the negative IgG control.

    We have 3 biological replicates for all IPs.

    I used the Trinity-based program, Agalma (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24252138) to assemble my reads.

    I currently have some quantitative data, including expression counts and FPKM.

    I'm having trouble in determining what is background and what is significant. I had originally planned to compare FPKM across samples. For instance, if the Gene X had an FPKM score of 50 in the IgG, I would only consider Gene X a significant hit if it had an FPKM score >50 in both Antibody-A and Antibody-B IPs.

    What is concerning me is that one of the control genes which we KNOW should be highly enriched by the A/B IPs shows a much higher FPKM expression in the negative IgG control than it does in the A/B IPs (ie: 170 vs 80). These FPKM values are consistent across all replicates.

    This makes me think that perhaps comparing FPKM across samples is not the best method and may not be valid. Should I be using a different means of comparison?

    Does anyone have experience or insight to identifying background in RIP-Seq experiments? Should I be using different values or a different calculation?

    Thank you VERY much for any help. It's greatly appreciated.
    Last edited by sjeschonek; 06-08-2014, 03:07 PM. Reason: spelling
  • sjeschonek
    Junior Member
    • Feb 2014
    • 9

    #2
    I notice this thread has a good number of views but no responses. Is there a better forum/subforum to post this question on? Thanks!

    Comment

    • dpryan
      Devon Ryan
      • Jul 2011
      • 3478

      #3
      While I've done a few RIP-seq experiments, I've not done one with your design before, so what follows will just be a first thought.

      One simple, but sub-optimal, approach would be to use any of the standard tools (DESeq2, edgeR, etc.) to test for differential expression between the Antibody-A or Antibody-B vs. IgG samples and then take the intersect of the results. This is less than ideal since you'll miss genes that are on the margin of significance in one or both samples. However, it'd be a good starting point and would give you somewhat conservative results for the validation step.

      I can think of some more involved methods that would (at least partly) be more powerful, but they'd be a bit more involved and possibly not worth the effort (give what I mentioned above a try, if you don't get much of anything then post back here).

      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, 06-26-2026, 11:10 AM
      0 responses
      16 views
      0 reactions
      Last Post SEQadmin2  
      Started by SEQadmin2, 06-17-2026, 06:09 AM
      0 responses
      49 views
      0 reactions
      Last Post SEQadmin2  
      Started by SEQadmin2, 06-09-2026, 11:58 AM
      0 responses
      108 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...