Unconfigured Ad

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • ndovu9
    Junior Member
    • Jul 2013
    • 3

    #1

    RNASeq Differential Gene Expression with two-sample Mann-Whitney test on FPKM?

    I am interested in performing differential gene expression analysis of RNASeq data in two conditions with a number of biological replicates for each condition. I have obtained gene-level FPKMs for each sample. As gene-level FPKMs should be properly normalized, comparing the expression of a single gene using FPKM across multiple samples should be reasonable. Thus, my simple strategy is this:
    use a two-sample, unpaired Mann-Whitney (Wilcox) test on the FPKMs for each gene in the two groups and correct for multiple hypothesis testing.

    I have a few questions regarding this approach. First, is it valid? Second, would this approach be valid for other RNASeq normalization methods (in particular Transcripts per Million (TPM) generated by RSEM)? Third, how is this approach better or worse than either count-based methods (e.g. DEGSeq/edgeR) or other commonly used methods (e.g. Cuffdiff)?
  • dpryan
    Devon Ryan
    • Jul 2011
    • 3478

    #2
    I guess it depends on how many samples you have and if the fpkm normalization works out OK or not. FPKM is effectively a tweaked library size-based normalization, with the accompanying issues. That aside, if you have a good number of samples such that you can properly use a Wilcoxon, then it's probably OK. Then biggest benefit to DESeq/edgeR/etc. is the information sharing between genes for dispersion estimation. If you really do have a lot of samples, though, I would suspect that that's not very important.

    Comment

    • sindrle
      Senior Member
      • Aug 2013
      • 266

      #3
      "good number of samples"

      How many is that? Approximatly?

      Comment

      • dpryan
        Devon Ryan
        • Jul 2011
        • 3478

        #4
        More than a few and less than a sh!t-ton*.

        For real numbers you'd have to either look that up or do a quick monte-carlo (the latter is probably more useful since you would just plug in observed distributions). My pulled-from-the-hind-quarters guesstimate would be maybe 10 samples per group, since that'd be enough to get a decent sense of the distribution (but for the love of <insert random diety>, don't base anything important on that!). A quick search of the literature reveals some more modest suggestions (around 10 minimum in one group and 4 minimum in the other), though I'd have to read further to find out how robust that really is.

        *interestingly, the forum replaces curse words with asterisks.

        Comment

        • sindrle
          Senior Member
          • Aug 2013
          • 266

          #5
          Thank!
          I was going to ask if 13 is ok, and I guess it is!

          I would also guess 5-10 i each group..

          Comment

          Latest Articles

          Collapse

          • 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
          • SEQadmin2
            New Genomics Technologies Take Aim at Long-Standing Limits
            by SEQadmin2


            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
            ...
            09-28-2026, 10:25 AM

          ad_right_rmr

          Collapse

          News

          Collapse

          Topics Statistics Last Post
          Started by SEQadmin2, 10-22-2026, 11:13 AM
          0 responses
          23 views
          0 reactions
          Last Post SEQadmin2  
          Started by SEQadmin2, 10-22-2026, 10:48 AM
          0 responses
          20 views
          0 reactions
          Last Post SEQadmin2  
          Started by SEQadmin2, 10-15-2026, 10:52 AM
          0 responses
          36 views
          0 reactions
          Last Post SEQadmin2  
          Started by SEQadmin2, 10-14-2026, 05:39 AM
          0 responses
          42 views
          0 reactions
          Last Post SEQadmin2  
          Working...