Unconfigured Ad

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

    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
        Cancer Drug Resistance: The Lingering Barrier to Rising Survival
        by SEQadmin2



        Cancer survival rates have significantly increased in the last few decades in the United States, reaching a combined 70% 5-year survival rate by 2021. Behind this number, there are years of research to find new therapies, drug targets, and early detection methods. But there is one core challenge that keeps slowing down these advances, and it’s about drug resistance.

        There is no single reason why many patients don’t respond to treatment as expected. Cancer is...
        Today, 05:17 AM
      • GATTACAT
        Reply to Nine Things a Sample Prep Scientist Thinks About Before Sequencing
        by GATTACAT
        Love this - good data definitely starts from good input, and poor input can only give relatively poor data. I particularly like the mention of Nanodrop/absorbance based methods for quantification. It's such a toss up if you'll get an accurate reading or what amounts to a randomly generated number, and a lot of library/sequencing related issues can be traced back to poor quant.
        07-01-2026, 11:43 AM
      • SEQadmin2
        Nine Things a Sample Prep Scientist Thinks About Before Sequencing
        by SEQadmin2


        I’m not a sequencing expert. I’m a purification scientist who uses NGS to evaluate workflows my group develops. With this perspective, we think about the sample first and the NGS workflow second. The sequencer is an exceptionally honest reporter, but it can only report on what you give it, so whether you get clean, interpretable data from an NGS workflow is largely determined before you begin.

        Here are nine questions we think about, in roughly the order they matter, before...
        06-18-2026, 07:11 AM

      ad_right_rmr

      Collapse

      News

      Collapse

      Topics Statistics Last Post
      Started by SEQadmin2, Today, 10:08 AM
      0 responses
      6 views
      0 reactions
      Last Post SEQadmin2  
      Started by SEQadmin2, Yesterday, 11:05 AM
      0 responses
      7 views
      0 reactions
      Last Post SEQadmin2  
      Started by SEQadmin2, 07-02-2026, 11:08 AM
      0 responses
      30 views
      0 reactions
      Last Post SEQadmin2  
      Started by SEQadmin2, 06-30-2026, 05:37 AM
      0 responses
      28 views
      0 reactions
      Last Post SEQadmin2  
      Working...