Unconfigured Ad

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • moem
    Junior Member
    • Nov 2015
    • 3

    #1

    edgeR and MA-plot question

    Hi,

    I am running edgeR and used plotSmear to visualize my results. When coloring only the genes that are DE by FDR<0.05 I see that many genes have a higher fold change than some of the DE genes and that some of the DE genes have a low fold change. This is only the case when I use estimateGLMTagwiseDisp and not when I use estimateGLMCommonDisp. Does this mean that using common dispersion is the best? I only have cases and controls in my data so I guess it should be good enough but I always thought estimating tagwise dispersion was better?

    Also:
    It also seems like ~90 % of my genes are up-regulated. I tried all the different normalization options but the results seem to be the same. Can this be true or could something be wrong with my data? Any way of testing that?
    Last edited by moem; 11-18-2015, 05:57 AM.
  • N311V
    Member
    • Jul 2013
    • 34

    #2
    I can't comment on your edgeR problem but maybe try using limma and see if a different approach gives the same result.

    Regarding 90% up-regulated, what are the differences between your cases and controls? For example, were they sequenced at the same time, extracted at the same time, etc.

    Comment

    • mastal
      Senior Member
      • Mar 2009
      • 666

      #3
      Does it make biological sense?

      Is the condition you are comparing between cases and controls one where you might expect the majority of the genes to be upregulated?

      Comment

      • moem
        Junior Member
        • Nov 2015
        • 3

        #4
        Thank you for your answers. I have run limma and DESeq now and it gives the same sort of answers with regards to the amount of up/down-regulation.

        I was wondering if anyone could see if my code makes sense:

        condition <- relevel(factor(input$condition),ref=”Control”)
        design <- model.matrix(~condition)

        “design” then lists “Intercept” and “ConditionCase”.

        e <- DGEList(counts=countstable)
        e <- calcNormFactors(e, method=”TMM”)
        e <- estimateGLMCommonDisp(e, design)
        e <- estimateGLMTrendedDisp(e, design)
        e <- estimateGLMTagwiseDisp(e, design)
        efit <- glmFit(e, design)
        efit <- glmLRT(efit, coef="ConditionCase")

        The logFCs are then mainly positive. My interpretation is then up-regulation in ConditionCase.
        Last edited by moem; 11-24-2015, 12:42 AM.

        Comment

        • N311V
          Member
          • Jul 2013
          • 34

          #5
          The result seems reasonable.

          Is there any other reason you can think of that might cause systematic up regulation?

          Were controls and treatments extracted at the same time? Sequenced at the same time? Are there age differences between treatments? Sex differences between treatments?

          Comment

          • moem
            Junior Member
            • Nov 2015
            • 3

            #6
            Thanks for looking at my code.

            Can't think of any reasons, but this is not a condition I know much about.

            Extraction and sequencing at the same time and same sex. No systematic difference in age between groups.

            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,...
              10-30-2026, 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, Yesterday, 07:59 AM
            0 responses
            16 views
            0 reactions
            Last Post SEQadmin2  
            Started by SEQadmin2, 11-05-2026, 09:25 AM
            0 responses
            32 views
            0 reactions
            Last Post SEQadmin2  
            Started by SEQadmin2, 11-03-2026, 11:54 AM
            0 responses
            47 views
            0 reactions
            Last Post SEQadmin2  
            Started by SEQadmin2, 10-28-2026, 09:57 AM
            0 responses
            172 views
            0 reactions
            Last Post SEQadmin2  
            Working...