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
-
Non-coding RNAs (ncRNAs) do not code for proteins but play important roles in numerous cellular processes including gene silencing, developmental pathways, and more. There are numerous types including microRNA (miRNA), long ncRNA (lncRNA), circular RNA (circRNA), and more. In this article, we discuss innovative ncRNA research and explore recent technological advancements that improve the study of ncRNAs.
Nobel Prize for MicroRNA Discovery
This week,...10-07-2024, 08:07 AM -
Metagenomics has improved the way researchers study microorganisms across diverse environments. Historically, studying microorganisms relied on culturing them in the lab, a method that limits the investigation of many species since most are unculturable1. Metagenomics overcomes these issues by allowing the study of microorganisms regardless of their ability to be cultured or the environments they inhabit. Over time, the field has evolved, especially with the advent...09-23-2024, 06:35 AM