Seqanswers Leaderboard Ad

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • eastasiasnow
    replied
    Originally posted by Jeremy View Post
    For differential expression analysis, I wouldn't. That design would have a lot of trouble getting published. For almost the same price you can sequence biological replicates that have been individually tagged and get results that are far more biologically relevant.
    thank you, jeremy, now I am assure what to do.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jeremy
    replied
    Originally posted by eastasiasnow View Post
    yeah, pooling biological replicate samples will lose group variance. but could I use this design to do the following analysis? do people accept this design when I apply it in my paper? if so, what kind of tools can do this?

    thank you very much.
    For differential expression analysis, I wouldn't. That design would have a lot of trouble getting published. For almost the same price you can sequence biological replicates that have been individually tagged and get results that are far more biologically relevant.

    Leave a comment:


  • eastasiasnow
    replied
    Originally posted by Jeremy View Post
    Based on my quote marks I think I was asking the OP what they meant and then pointing out (via rhetorical question) that you can't get within group variance using a pooled approach. But it was so long ago I can't remember and the phrase that I quoted seems to no longer be there.
    yeah, pooling biological replicate samples will lose group variance. but could I use this design to do the following analysis? do people accept this design when I apply it in my paper? if so, what kind of tools can do this?

    thank you very much.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jeremy
    replied
    Originally posted by eastasiasnow View Post
    hi Jeremy, have you got the answer of your concern?
    Based on my quote marks I think I was asking the OP what they meant and then pointing out (via rhetorical question) that you can't get within group variance using a pooled approach. But it was so long ago I can't remember and the phrase that I quoted seems to no longer be there.

    Leave a comment:


  • eastasiasnow
    replied
    Originally posted by Jeremy View Post
    By "mix multiple biological replicates in the same barcoded sample", do you mean each sample has its own barcode and is pooled together and sequenced. Or do you mean that multiple samples are pooled together, given the same barcode and then sequenced?

    If you mix samples and give them the same barcode, how do you calculate variance?
    hi Jeremy, have you got the answer of your concern?

    Leave a comment:


  • jminich444
    replied

    Leave a comment:


  • adumitri
    replied
    Cuffdiff - differential expression analysis between groups of samples

    This criticism also applies to cuffdiff, at least to the version described in the paper. (There is a new version of cuffdiff that allows for biological replicates but there is no documentation on its method yet, and hence it is unclear whether it now asks the relevant question.)
    Hello,

    Simon mentioned the existence of a new version of Cuffdiff that allows for biological replicates. Does anyone know anything else about this new version? Will it be released soon or is it already available somewhere?

    Given the currently available Cuffdiff version (v0.9.3), is there any viable workaround to analyze groups of samples (e.g. control samples compared with treated samples)?

    Thank you,
    Alexandra

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Anders
    replied
    Originally posted by vpp605 View Post
    Simon - sorry for making you repeat everything over again -- if there is a "better" post for me to look at, please point me in that direction!
    No Problem. We had a couple of discussions on the subject of replicates, but they are spread over several threads, so they may be hard to find.

    Here are a few of them:

    Discussion of next-gen sequencing related bioinformatics: resources, algorithms, open source efforts, etc

    Discussion of next-gen sequencing related bioinformatics: resources, algorithms, open source efforts, etc

    Application of sequencing to RNA analysis (RNA-Seq, whole transcriptome, SAGE, expression analysis, novel organism mining, splice variants)

    Application of sequencing to RNA analysis (RNA-Seq, whole transcriptome, SAGE, expression analysis, novel organism mining, splice variants)


    Note that some of the mentioned software packages have got new functionality quite recently, i.e., some arguments in these threads about their limitations are out of date.

    Simon

    Leave a comment:


  • vpp605
    replied
    Thank you everyone for the replies!!

    golharam - thank you for pointing me to that paper!

    Simon - sorry for making you repeat everything over again -- if there is a "better" post for me to look at, please point me in that direction!

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Anders
    replied
    I've explained this in a number of posts before, so I just repeat the core points.

    - If you use FIsher's exact test or something similar, you don't need any replicates because it cannot accommodate for them. The results, though, will be wrong, especially for strongly expressed genes.

    This is because Fisher's exact test tests whether two samples differ in the concentration of a given transcript. This is, however, not the question you want to ask. What you want to know is whether the difference between two samples with different treatment is stronger than what you expect to see between two samples that are replicates, because otherwise, you cannot attribute the difference to the treatment.

    This criticism also applies to cuffdiff, at least to the version described in the paper. (There is a new version of cuffdiff that allows for biological replicates but there is no documentation on its method yet, and hence it is unclear whether it now asks the relevant question.)

    - If you have many replicates, use a t test.

    - With only two or three replicates, you need to pool across genes, i.e., assume that similar genes have similar variance. Our DESeq package assumes that genes with similar expression strength have similar variance, and so pools information from these in order to get a reasonable estimate of biological variability, which is then used for the test.

    Simon

    Leave a comment:


  • golharam
    replied
    We always recommend at least 3 biological replicates. If you do two, how do you know one isn't bad? If you do three, and one is bad, you can at least eliminate it and continue.

    I think 4 would be ideal especially from a statistical standpoint, but that's not always possible because of cost. However, talk with your sequencing core facility to determine if barcoding multiple samples is an option. If it is, you may be able to sequence more samples for the same cost.

    Take a look at this paper as well:

    Statistical Design and Analysis of RNA Sequencing Data
    Genetics, Vol. 185, No. 2. (1 June 2010), pp. 405-416.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jeremy
    replied
    By "mix multiple biological replicates in the same barcoded sample", do you mean each sample has its own barcode and is pooled together and sequenced. Or do you mean that multiple samples are pooled together, given the same barcode and then sequenced?

    If you mix samples and give them the same barcode, how do you calculate variance?

    Leave a comment:


  • ecofriendly
    replied
    mrawlins, can you suggest an article that explains the difference between these different statistical tests and why they require different numbers of biological replicates of RNA-seq data to be as powerful?

    I've been reading the Cufflinks paper and trying to understand their statistical model used to analyze RNA-seq data, as written in the Supplementary Methods (Trapnell et al., 2010, in Nature Biotechnology). Can someone explain it to me in simple terms with as little math as possible ?

    Leave a comment:


  • NicoBxl
    replied
    like mrawlins, we've mixed multiple biological replicates in the same barcoded sample. but we're working on small rna seq.

    It works great

    Leave a comment:


  • mrawlins
    replied
    This will depend on what statistics you use to determine statistical significance.

    If you are using something like a T-test, you really want as many replicates as possible. You can't do these tests without at least 3 replicates. Depth isn't particularly useful here, but more replicates are. It's an oversimplified approach to the statistics, IMO.

    If you use something like Fisher's Exact Test (hypergeometric or poisson distribution) then two biological replicates should be reasonable. You can actually mix multiple biological replicates in the same barcoded sample and it will likely give the same answer (since the reads from replicates are just added together). In this case the read depth is more useful than additional replicates. This method is what we use, but a number of people (probably more knowledgeable than me) have raised concerns with it.

    If you use something like DESeq I don't have an answer for you, because I don't know anything about their statistical models. My guess is that two biological replicates would be fine for this type of analysis, though you may need 3.

    I think this is a useful question, though, and I am interested to see what others think.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Articles

Collapse

  • seqadmin
    Exploring the Dynamics of the Tumor Microenvironment
    by seqadmin




    The complexity of cancer is clearly demonstrated in the diverse ecosystem of the tumor microenvironment (TME). The TME is made up of numerous cell types and its development begins with the changes that happen during oncogenesis. “Genomic mutations, copy number changes, epigenetic alterations, and alternative gene expression occur to varying degrees within the affected tumor cells,” explained Andrea O’Hara, Ph.D., Strategic Technical Specialist at Azenta. “As...
    07-08-2024, 03:19 PM
  • seqadmin
    Exploring Human Diversity Through Large-Scale Omics
    by seqadmin


    In 2003, researchers from the Human Genome Project (HGP) announced the most comprehensive genome to date1. Although the genome wasn’t fully completed until nearly 20 years later2, numerous large-scale projects, such as the International HapMap Project and 1000 Genomes Project, continued the HGP's work, capturing extensive variation and genomic diversity within humans. Recently, newer initiatives have significantly increased in scale and expanded beyond genomics, offering a more detailed...
    06-25-2024, 06:43 AM

ad_right_rmr

Collapse

News

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by seqadmin, 07-10-2024, 07:30 AM
0 responses
23 views
0 likes
Last Post seqadmin  
Started by seqadmin, 07-03-2024, 09:45 AM
0 responses
200 views
0 likes
Last Post seqadmin  
Started by seqadmin, 07-03-2024, 08:54 AM
0 responses
209 views
0 likes
Last Post seqadmin  
Started by seqadmin, 07-02-2024, 03:00 PM
0 responses
192 views
0 likes
Last Post seqadmin  
Working...
X