Seqanswers Leaderboard Ad

Collapse

Announcement

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

  • Thias
    replied
    BioMart is an option. I frequently use it as R package ("biomaRt"), but there is also an easy to use online tool.

    Leave a comment:


  • super0925
    replied
    Hi All I am a rookie in RNA-seq.
    I found a problem that gene ID output from Cuffdiff and egdeR/DESeq are different so that I cannot find the common DE genes.
    I use the data set with the Drosophila melanogaster genome.
    The edgeR output gene ID (e.g. FBgn0000370,FBgn0000500,…)
    But the Cuffdiff output gene ID is something like (XLOC_000028,XLOC_000038,…) and gene symbol (e.g.,KH1,RpLP1,…).
    Could you please recommend any software or command to translate them automatically? Could you have command line for me to use to uniform or join them?

    Leave a comment:


  • songyj
    replied
    how wonderful

    Originally posted by mbblack View Post
    I analyzed the same RNAseq data set using cuffdiff, DESeq and EdgeR. The data was a whole transcriptome SOLiD 4 fragment run for 3 control and 3 treatment animals (mice), so the final mapped reads ranged from approx. 71M reads, to a high of approx. 171M reads (because of the layout of the barcoding on the slides they were not all equivalent). Raw counts were extracted from BioScope mapped reads using BAMtools and a UCSC RefGene bed file as reference.

    Going solely by FDR < 0.05 as a cutoff:

    EdgeR - only 217 significantly differentially expressed genes
    DESeq - 337 significantly differentially expressed genes
    There were 198 genes in common in those two lists.

    Cuffdiff gave 202 significantly differentially expressed genes by q-value, but I don't know offhand how many of those are genes common to the other two.

    The issue that has me really tearing my hair out is that I have microarray (affy) data for these same animals. A LIMMA analysis of those 6 arrays gives some 3000 significant genes by FDR < 0.05. With the coverage I have with the RNAseq data, I should at least be comparable with the array data, not left with a difference in significant genes of 1000s.

    We were expecting to approach or exceed array results with about one tenth of the mapped reads I have for these initial runs.
    Wow..
    I only used Tophat/cufflinks ,2 ,only 2 significantly differentially expressed genes in isoform_exp.diff
    seems like maybe I could try DESeq, hope it will give me more differentially expressed genes

    Leave a comment:


  • mbblack
    replied
    Originally posted by PFS View Post
    Has anyone tried to compare the results from the various tools that offers differential expression analyses for RNASEQ data?

    I understand they have different underlying models and assumptions, but I would expect some overlap. At a first glance, when I tried to compare the results on my data, I got completely different DE genesets and I am puzzled.
    I analyzed the same RNAseq data set using cuffdiff, DESeq and EdgeR. The data was a whole transcriptome SOLiD 4 fragment run for 3 control and 3 treatment animals (mice), so the final mapped reads ranged from approx. 71M reads, to a high of approx. 171M reads (because of the layout of the barcoding on the slides they were not all equivalent). Raw counts were extracted from BioScope mapped reads using BAMtools and a UCSC RefGene bed file as reference.

    Going solely by FDR < 0.05 as a cutoff:

    EdgeR - only 217 significantly differentially expressed genes
    DESeq - 337 significantly differentially expressed genes
    There were 198 genes in common in those two lists.

    Cuffdiff gave 202 significantly differentially expressed genes by q-value, but I don't know offhand how many of those are genes common to the other two.

    The issue that has me really tearing my hair out is that I have microarray (affy) data for these same animals. A LIMMA analysis of those 6 arrays gives some 3000 significant genes by FDR < 0.05. With the coverage I have with the RNAseq data, I should at least be comparable with the array data, not left with a difference in significant genes of 1000s.

    We were expecting to approach or exceed array results with about one tenth of the mapped reads I have for these initial runs.

    Leave a comment:


  • chenyao
    replied
    Originally posted by PFS View Post
    Has anyone tried to compare the results from the various tools that offers differential expression analyses for RNASEQ data?

    I understand they have different underlying models and assumptions, but I would expect some overlap. At a first glance, when I tried to compare the results on my data, I got completely different DE genesets and I am puzzled.
    This is quite interesting question?

    I also want to know the answer. With my experence on microarray, different statistcal method may generate different DEG list, but they should have a lot overlap.

    Leave a comment:


  • PFS
    started a topic comparing results by cuffdiff, edgeR, DESeq

    comparing results by cuffdiff, edgeR, DESeq

    Has anyone tried to compare the results from the various tools that offers differential expression analyses for RNASEQ data?

    I understand they have different underlying models and assumptions, but I would expect some overlap. At a first glance, when I tried to compare the results on my data, I got completely different DE genesets and I am puzzled.

Latest Articles

Collapse

  • seqadmin
    Best Practices for Single-Cell Sequencing Analysis
    by seqadmin



    While isolating and preparing single cells for sequencing was historically the bottleneck, recent technological advancements have shifted the challenge to data analysis. This highlights the rapidly evolving nature of single-cell sequencing. The inherent complexity of single-cell analysis has intensified with the surge in data volume and the incorporation of diverse and more complex datasets. This article explores the challenges in analysis, examines common pitfalls, offers...
    06-06-2024, 07:15 AM
  • seqadmin
    Latest Developments in Precision Medicine
    by seqadmin



    Technological advances have led to drastic improvements in the field of precision medicine, enabling more personalized approaches to treatment. This article explores four leading groups that are overcoming many of the challenges of genomic profiling and precision medicine through their innovative platforms and technologies.

    Somatic Genomics
    “We have such a tremendous amount of genetic diversity that exists within each of us, and not just between us as individuals,”...
    05-24-2024, 01:16 PM

ad_right_rmr

Collapse

News

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by seqadmin, Yesterday, 06:54 AM
0 responses
10 views
0 likes
Last Post seqadmin  
Started by seqadmin, 06-14-2024, 07:24 AM
0 responses
17 views
0 likes
Last Post seqadmin  
Started by seqadmin, 06-13-2024, 08:58 AM
0 responses
16 views
0 likes
Last Post seqadmin  
Started by seqadmin, 06-12-2024, 02:20 PM
0 responses
17 views
0 likes
Last Post seqadmin  
Working...
X