Unconfigured Ad

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • swaraj
    Member
    • Feb 2012
    • 50

    #1

    RPKM threshold estimation

    Dear All,

    I have a doubt in the calculation of False postitive rate while checking for FPKM threshold in a RNAseq experiment.

    Following the method previously published (http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/...l.pcbi.1000598). I am not getting desired results.

    I followed the method as mentioned the publication

    Reads were mapped to Ensembl genes (blue) and intergenic background regions (red). The intergenic regions were matched to have the same length distribution and no ESTs mapping within regions. We binned the expressions of all genes and background regions across human tissues. We zoomed in on the effects at expression spanning between 0.01 to 10 RPKM for clarity. Bins were converted to cumulative amounts of genes expressed above the expression levels for genes and controls cum_background; A false discovery rate fdr was calculated at each expression level, i, as:
    fdri=cum_backgroundi/cum_genesi * (1-cum_genesi)/(1-cum_backgroundi).

    I am confused over the fact that cum_background and cum_genes stand for the cumulative count of genes or they are the fraction of cumulative gene counts falling under each bin.

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, detection...
    Today, 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, 10-28-2026, 09:57 AM
0 responses
22 views
0 reactions
Last Post SEQadmin2  
Started by SEQadmin2, 10-28-2026, 09:51 AM
0 responses
14 views
0 reactions
Last Post SEQadmin2  
Started by SEQadmin2, 10-22-2026, 11:13 AM
0 responses
67 views
0 reactions
Last Post SEQadmin2  
Started by SEQadmin2, 10-22-2026, 10:48 AM
0 responses
47 views
0 reactions
Last Post SEQadmin2  
Working...