I guess I mostly am asking the DESeq team, ie. Simon Anders, but wanted to put this out there for others doing similar experiments.
I want to make a series of pair-wise comparisons, A vs. B, A vs. C, A vs. D, etc. I have 2 replicates per time point. When measuring dispersion using DEseq, is it more sound to do so off of the full count table (a1 a2 b1 b2 c1 c2...) or just off of the data you are looking at for that particular test (a1 a2 c1 c2)?
Having set it up both ways, I get more genes above any given padj cutoff if I measure dispersion on the more limited set, but is this being sloppy?
Somewhat relatedly, if my dispersion graph is really ugly (many points are really far from the red line), but I am still getting tons of genes with padj <0.05, can I assume that the differences that I am seeing are statistically valid and also probably real and that I am just missing smaller changes that are hidden by the noise of my data, or are even my statistically significant changes suspect?
Thanks,
Anna
-
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 -
Researchers using sequencing and genomics tools often have to make trade-offs. They can choose between speed or scale, short reads or long-range information, or targeted panels or a view of the whole transcriptome. New technologies that have been released this year are built to address those tough choices.
We asked six companies the same four questions to learn about their latest products. The new technologies bring a lot to the table, including rethinking sequencing...