Unconfigured Ad

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • jaymiRNA
    Junior Member
    • Nov 2011
    • 5

    #1

    Differential expression DESeq using GLM for timecourse experiment

    Dear Members
    I am currently working on NGS data and performed some differential expression analysis using DESeq. At the moment I am trying to find differentially expressed miRNAs using GLM functionality.
    My experimental design consists of 4 samples (4stages of developing flower) with 2 biological replicates each. I would like to identify the differentially expressed miRNA during different developmental stages(Stage 1,2,3 and 4). However, I have some doubts regarding my final data interpretation and here is the code I used and the output.

    My Dataset:
    >Str(SSSA)
    Dataframe: 662 obs. of 8 variables:
    $ Flower1 : int 1 1 6 0 0 0 6709 0 3 0 ...
    $ Flower1.1: int 1 1 1 0 0 0 2261 2 1 2 ...
    $ Flower2 : int 0 4 49 0 0 0 7311 0 4 0 ...
    $ Flower2.1: int 1 14 69 0 0 0 11211 0 1 0 ...
    $ Flower3 : int 0 8 89 1 0 0 1978 0 0 1 ...
    $ Flower3.1: int 0 4 72 0 0 0 5392 0 1 1 ...
    $ Flower4 : int 0 1 67 0 0 0 4675 0 0 0 ...
    $ Flower4.1: int 0 0 21 0 0 0 4629 0 1 5 ...


    Code:
    My code
    groups <- c( rep("F1",2), rep("F2",2), rep("F3",2), rep("F4",2) )
    cds <- newCountDataSet(SSSA , groups )
    cds <- estimateSizeFactors( cds )
    cds <- estimateDispersions( cds, "pooled" )
    fit0 <- fitNbinomGLMs ( cds, count ~ 1 )
    fit1 <- fitNbinomGLMs ( cds, count ~ groups )
    pvals <- nbinomGLMTest( fit1, fit0 )
    padjGLM <- p.adjust( pvals, method="BH" )
    fit1.pval <- cbind(fit1, padjGLM)
    My Result
    > str(fit1.pval)
    'data.frame': 662 obs. of 7 variables:
    $ (Intercept): num 1.23 1.16 2.77 -32.46 NA ...
    $ groupsF2 : num -3.17 1.07 2.17 -2.1 NA ...
    $ groupsF3 : num -32.569 0.859 2.973 30.973 NA ...
    $ groupsF4 : num -31.675 -2.008 2.835 -0.875 NA ...
    $ deviance : num 0.746 1.895 2.041 0.234 NA ...
    $ converged : logi TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE NA NA ...
    $ pval : num 0.28395 0.44052 0.00622 0.86603 NA ...

    My doubts.....
    1.In my case, is it better to set the conditions as a data frame instead of a vector- “groups <- c( rep("F1",2), rep("F2",2), rep("F3",2), rep("F4",2) )”?
    2.In the code, I calculated the object fit0 setting the value 1 after the tilde -“fit0 <- fitNbinomGLMs ( cds, count ~ 1 )” but I am not very clear.. what count ~ 1 stand for/refers to ?

    3.My final results( above) shows 7 variables(including the adjusted pvalue) in the data.frame and I am not clear in interpreting this data. In particular , by using ‘groups’ in calling fit 1 i.e. fit1 <- fitNbinomGLMs ( cds, count ~ groups ),I can’t understand if I really compared F1 against all other stages F2,F3,F4, as I intend or If I made any other comparisions.

    Could anyone help me on this?

    Jay
  • jaymiRNA
    Junior Member
    • Nov 2011
    • 5

    #2
    nobody knows?

    Comment

    • Simon Anders
      Senior Member
      • Feb 2010
      • 995

      #3
      re 1.: If you pass a data frame, you can name you factor. You used "groups". If you pass just a vector, it will always be "condition".

      re 2.: You are testing whether the differences between samples from different groups are significantly stronger than the difference between replicates.

      Is this what you want to test?

      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, 11-05-2026, 09:25 AM
      0 responses
      15 views
      0 reactions
      Last Post SEQadmin2  
      Started by SEQadmin2, 11-03-2026, 11:54 AM
      0 responses
      32 views
      0 reactions
      Last Post SEQadmin2  
      Started by SEQadmin2, 10-28-2026, 09:57 AM
      0 responses
      78 views
      0 reactions
      Last Post SEQadmin2  
      Started by SEQadmin2, 10-28-2026, 09:51 AM
      0 responses
      50 views
      0 reactions
      Last Post SEQadmin2  
      Working...