Seqanswers Leaderboard Ad

Collapse

Announcement

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

  • vyellapa
    replied
    The sequencing core here is including a control sample(technical replicate) onto a multiplexed lane for every RNA-seq run. This is so that if the run goes well, there should be a high correlation in the control data between runs. In the past runs, I have looked at Spearmans correlation test and scatter plots to check for high concordance. However, the results from these tests varied and interpreting them was not the easiest.

    The Marioni et al. paper focuses on technical replicability of samples of a single flow cell. Could this be extended to withing run sample concordance?

    If so, I could think of 3 ways in which sample concordance could be measured.
    a) Spearmans correlation of counts
    b) Poisson modelling the counts should show little differential expression as shot noise should be modelled by Poisson
    c) Use a hyper-geometric distribution model to compute P-value testing whether the number of counts differed than expected by random sampling.

    Are any of the above methods appropriate for answering the question? If not what could be a possible way.

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Anders
    replied
    If you compare a single sample to another single sample, you heve to use DESeq's "blind" dispersion estimation method. For the comparison between conditions you probably have not used the blind settings. Comparing the number of DE genes from two analyses performed with so completely different settings makes no sense.

    Leave a comment:


  • papori
    replied
    Originally posted by Simon Anders View Post
    I am not sure what you mean by "doing differential expression within replicates" but if you really have so strong variance, the DE analysis between conditions should better not give many hits.
    What i was meanning is doing DE tests (as DESeq).
    For example, if for condition 1 i have 3 replicates. so, by examining rep1 to rep2 using DESeq i am getting 26 DE genes.
    Moreover, if i am examining cond1 rep1 vs. cond2 rep1 i am getting 300 DE genes..

    hope it was more clear..

    Thanks

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Anders
    replied
    I am not sure what you mean by "doing differential expression within replicates" but if you really have so strong variance, the DE analysis between conditions should better not give many hits.

    Leave a comment:


  • papori
    replied
    We have to remember that when the resolution is higher the variance also..

    Leave a comment:


  • papori
    replied
    in my experiment we did amplification.. which cause to many genes have expression of 0.. even within the same condition..
    i can have for the same gene in
    condition 1 replicate A count of 10
    condition 1 replicate B count of 100
    condition 1 replicate C count of 1000

    or,
    condition 1 replicate A count of 0
    condition 1 replicate B count of 0
    condition 1 replicate C count of 150

    That is why when i am doing correlation i am getting very low correlation(0.2)..
    But, when i am doing Differential expression within replicates and between conditions (Both with Deseq) i am getting much more DE genes between the conditions..

    To conclude:
    Differential expression looks to work fine..
    Correlation not.. (i tried also to remove outliers.. 0'z or 10000+)

    Any advice?
    I plotted in scatter and it looks not good..

    Any help will be appreciated!

    Leave a comment:


  • papori
    replied
    Yes sure.
    I thought maybe there is a shortcut that i am missing.

    Thank!

    Leave a comment:


  • vyellapa
    replied
    I have been using HTseq for my counts but the most obvious thing to do it seems is to rerun cuffdiff now with each replicate as the new input as opposed to grouping replicates.

    Leave a comment:


  • papori
    replied
    Originally posted by vyellapa View Post
    Counts can be obtained using two ways:
    -Using HTseq-counts
    htseq-count -m intersection-strict -s no queryNameSorted.sam ~/GRCh37_E64_1kg.gtf > output

    -Using cuffdiff.cuffdiff now gives a another output file with count information.

    It is possible to convert FPKMs to counts but the above methods are more straightforward and tested.
    Thanks!
    But, when i looked into cuffdiff output, i found the mean for each replicate..(genes.count_tracking)
    if i want to plot 2 replicates.. i need the raw for each...
    Am i missing something?

    Thanks

    Leave a comment:


  • vyellapa
    replied
    Counts can be obtained using two ways:
    -Using HTseq-counts
    htseq-count -m intersection-strict -s no queryNameSorted.sam ~/GRCh37_E64_1kg.gtf > output

    -Using cuffdiff.cuffdiff now gives a another output file with count information.

    It is possible to convert FPKMs to counts but the above methods are more straightforward and tested.
    Last edited by vyellapa; 07-17-2012, 09:26 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • papori
    replied
    Originally posted by vyellapa View Post
    Thank you Simon.Plotting raw counts scatter plot showed a tight plot at 45 degrees from the origin. The correlation value was .92 too.Using the count values does make sense, however, why such pattern is not found in the FPKM values is something I cannot make sense of.
    How did you change from fpkm to counts?

    Leave a comment:


  • vyellapa
    replied
    Originally posted by Simon Anders View Post
    re #1 and #3: It is generally more helpful to look at scatter plots than only at correlation values. You want to know whether is is only the genes with low counts or all genes that differ a lot. For this, make sure to plot raw counts, not RPKM values.
    Thank you Simon.Plotting raw counts scatter plot showed a tight plot at 45 degrees from the origin. The correlation value was .92 too.Using the count values does make sense, however, why such pattern is not found in the FPKM values is something I cannot make sense of.

    While one possibility is that cufflinks could throw some FPKM values which could be outliers, I filtered all rows which have an exponential value(such as 1.78989e+06, 8.1667e-05, etc..) and used the remaining values for the scatter plot.

    If the FPKM values are indeed normalized what I really should be seeing is difference between these values(FPKM_sample1-FPKM_sample2) close to 0?

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Anders
    replied
    re #1: You could try to run a standard DESeq analysis on your data, and see if it finds anything. Maybe, you have only very few differentially expressed genes, which a DE analysis can find but which are not enough to change the overall correlation coefficient. More likely, though, a DE analysis will confirm what your comparison of correlation coefficients suggests, namely, that the effect of the differences between your conditions is weaker than your variation between replicates, i.e., that your experiment has failed.

    re #1 and #3: It is generally more helpful to look at scatter plots than only at correlation values. You want to know whether is is only the genes with low counts or all genes that differ a lot. For this, make sure to plot raw counts, not RPKM values.

    Leave a comment:


  • vyellapa
    replied
    I am trying to find correlation between two biological replicates RNA-seq runs.
    I ran Tophat and Cufflinks, extracted the FPKM values and plotted these values against each other and find correlation using R.

    Code:
    library(car)
    reg1<-lm(FPKM_1~FPKM_2)
    cor(FPKM_1,FPKM_2)
    The correlation I found was .2 which is disappointing given that these are replicates. Have anyone else tried other ways to find correlation between replicates and found a good correlation?

    Leave a comment:


  • sphil
    replied
    At first glance you should plot the data against each other. Which means that, for instance let's assume you got one dataset (A) and one biological replicate (B) , you plot the expression value of A against the value of B. In best case, when correlation is 1 you should get a straight line through your coordinate system. For sure their will be some bias through amplification but in my opinion it shouldn't count that much (at least in bio-replicates). Comparing conditions might rise results like 0.6 correlation if the conditions are more or less totally different!

    Leave a comment:

Latest Articles

Collapse

  • seqadmin
    Recent Advances in Sequencing Analysis Tools
    by seqadmin


    The sequencing world is rapidly changing due to declining costs, enhanced accuracies, and the advent of newer, cutting-edge instruments. Equally important to these developments are improvements in sequencing analysis, a process that converts vast amounts of raw data into a comprehensible and meaningful form. This complex task requires expertise and the right analysis tools. In this article, we highlight the progress and innovation in sequencing analysis by reviewing several of the...
    05-06-2024, 07:48 AM
  • seqadmin
    Essential Discoveries and Tools in Epitranscriptomics
    by seqadmin




    The field of epigenetics has traditionally concentrated more on DNA and how changes like methylation and phosphorylation of histones impact gene expression and regulation. However, our increased understanding of RNA modifications and their importance in cellular processes has led to a rise in epitranscriptomics research. “Epitranscriptomics brings together the concepts of epigenetics and gene expression,” explained Adrien Leger, PhD, Principal Research Scientist...
    04-22-2024, 07:01 AM

ad_right_rmr

Collapse

News

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by seqadmin, 05-14-2024, 07:03 AM
0 responses
17 views
0 likes
Last Post seqadmin  
Started by seqadmin, 05-10-2024, 06:35 AM
0 responses
40 views
0 likes
Last Post seqadmin  
Started by seqadmin, 05-09-2024, 02:46 PM
0 responses
50 views
0 likes
Last Post seqadmin  
Started by seqadmin, 05-07-2024, 06:57 AM
0 responses
41 views
0 likes
Last Post seqadmin  
Working...
X