Unconfigured Ad

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Michael_RNAseq
    Junior Member
    • Aug 2012
    • 3

    #1

    ANODEV and post-hoc RNAseq DE and DESeq

    We are running into a problem when calling differentially expressed genes (DEGs) using an ANODEV with DESeq (or any other application).

    Let me state our data then our dilemma.

    Our data:

    128 samples, sampled across 3 time points: timeA, timeB, timeC. (384 samples total = 128 x 3)
    The 128 samples can be split into 2 conditions (disease (n=64) and controls, n=64) at each time point).

    A design matrix would look something like this:

    Total------------------TimeA(n=128)---TimeB(n=128)--TimeC(n=128)
    DISEASE(n=192)-----n=64-------------n=64-------------n=64
    CONTROL(n=192)----n=64-------------n=64-------------n=64

    Our dilemma:

    What we aim to do is to test for DE of transcripts across all 3 time points (using DESeq ANODEV) but we want to be able to identify at which time points these transcripts are being DE for both cases and controls separately. In other words, compare which transcripts are DE, with respect to specific time points, between cases and controls. Generally one would employ a post-hoc test to reveal the time point (timeA vs timeB, timeB vs. timeC etc...) where these transcripts are DE.

    From our knowledge there is no implementation of post-hoc testing after ANODEV in DESeq or any other RNAseq analysis. In this scenario, what is the advantage to running an ANODEV when one needs to run a post-hoc test afterwards?

    What insight can anyone offer us regarding DESeq towards understanding which transcripts are DE at our various time points for cases and controls?

    Best,

    Michael
    Last edited by Michael_RNAseq; 05-30-2013, 10:11 AM.
  • Michael_RNAseq
    Junior Member
    • Aug 2012
    • 3

    #2
    Any responses?

    In short, all I need to know is how to tell at which time points (or both) is DESeq calling a transcript significantly DE.

    Michael
    Last edited by Michael_RNAseq; 06-06-2013, 07:21 PM. Reason: Clarity

    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, 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
    24 views
    0 reactions
    Last Post SEQadmin2  
    Started by SEQadmin2, 10-28-2026, 09:51 AM
    0 responses
    15 views
    0 reactions
    Last Post SEQadmin2  
    Started by SEQadmin2, 10-22-2026, 11:13 AM
    0 responses
    68 views
    0 reactions
    Last Post SEQadmin2  
    Started by SEQadmin2, 10-22-2026, 10:48 AM
    0 responses
    48 views
    0 reactions
    Last Post SEQadmin2  
    Working...