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
-
The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the need for proactive pathogen surveillance systems. As ongoing threats like avian influenza and newly emerging infections continue to pose risks, researchers are working to improve how quickly and accurately pathogens can be identified and tracked. In a recent SEQanswers webinar, two experts discussed how next-generation sequencing (NGS) and machine learning are shaping efforts to monitor viral variation and trace the origins of infectious...03-24-2025, 11:48 AM -
This year’s Advances in Genome Biology and Technology (AGBT) General Meeting commemorated the 25th anniversary of the event at its original venue on Marco Island, Florida. While this year’s event didn’t include high-profile musical performances, the industry announcements and cutting-edge research still drew the attention of leading scientists.
The Headliner
The biggest announcement was Roche stepping back into the sequencing platform market. In the years since...03-03-2025, 01:39 PM