Seqanswers Leaderboard Ad

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What to include in my count table(s) for DESeq

    I have five experimental groups (A, B, C, D, and E; 3-6 bioreps each) that I want to compare to each other and a control (Y; 3 bioreps) using DESeq.

    When I run DESeq is it better to use a count table that includes A, B, C, D, E, and Y, then run each comparison, or is it better to make a count table for each comparison (ie: a table for A and Y, another table for B and Y, another table for A and B, etc.) and end up with ~15 different count tables?

    I ask because I end up with different lists of significantly changed loci depending on how I run the analysis and I'm not sure which is more 'correct.'

  • #2
    It is better to have a single count table. This shall lead to increased statistical power. You are likely to get somewhat higher number of differentially expressed genes as DESeq would be able to tease out more signal from the noise.

    Comment


    • #3
      This is what I had been doing all along (running everything in one count table), but then this morning I thought I'd try A vs. B in a separate count table.

      I was surprised to find almost double the loci with padj < 0.05 compared to when I ran everything in one count table (and hence my new-found concern).

      Comment


      • #4
        Have a look at the size factors. If one of them from the full dataset is very different than the others, that can cause this sort of result.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by rndouglas View Post
          This is what I had been doing all along (running everything in one count table), but then this morning I thought I'd try A vs. B in a separate count table. I was surprised to find almost double the loci with padj < 0.05 compared to when I ran everything in one count table (and hence my new-found concern).
          This is really strange and counter-intuitive. Do you find more loci for all the contrasts? I can imagine this being the case for a small subset of the contrasts where there happens to be less variation within the sample groups but I find it hard to believe that you would get in total a much higher number of differentially expressed features by splitting the count table. What sort of normalisation do you do? Can you give more details about your bioinformatics workflow?

          Comment


          • #6
            I just realized I'm only seeing this in my smallRNA libraries (adapter removed, t/rRNA removed, size-selected for 20-25nt in sRNA Workbench).

            I map the reads using bowtie (-v 0).

            I generate read counts with htseq-count, then build my count table(s).

            I run DESeq following along with the vignette section 3.1.

            So far, every 1v1 count table I've looked (7 of the possible 15) at has called more significantly changed loci (padj < 0.05) than I get when looking at the exact same comparison using a count table that includes all 30 of my bio-reps.

            The biggest 'jump' was from 76 to 372 loci for one comparison.

            Comment

            Latest Articles

            Collapse

            • seqadmin
              Genetic Variation in Immunogenetics and Antibody Diversity
              by seqadmin



              The field of immunogenetics explores how genetic variations influence immune responses and susceptibility to disease. In a recent SEQanswers webinar, Oscar Rodriguez, Ph.D., Postdoctoral Researcher at the University of Louisville, and Ruben Martínez Barricarte, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Medicine at Vanderbilt University, shared recent advancements in immunogenetics. This article discusses their research on genetic variation in antibody loci, antibody production processes,...
              11-06-2024, 07:24 PM
            • seqadmin
              Choosing Between NGS and qPCR
              by seqadmin



              Next-generation sequencing (NGS) and quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) are essential techniques for investigating the genome, transcriptome, and epigenome. In many cases, choosing the appropriate technique is straightforward, but in others, it can be more challenging to determine the most effective option. A simple distinction is that smaller, more focused projects are typically better suited for qPCR, while larger, more complex datasets benefit from NGS. However,...
              10-18-2024, 07:11 AM

            ad_right_rmr

            Collapse

            News

            Collapse

            Topics Statistics Last Post
            Started by seqadmin, 11-08-2024, 11:09 AM
            0 responses
            221 views
            0 likes
            Last Post seqadmin  
            Started by seqadmin, 11-08-2024, 06:13 AM
            0 responses
            163 views
            0 likes
            Last Post seqadmin  
            Started by seqadmin, 11-01-2024, 06:09 AM
            0 responses
            80 views
            0 likes
            Last Post seqadmin  
            Started by seqadmin, 10-30-2024, 05:31 AM
            0 responses
            27 views
            0 likes
            Last Post seqadmin  
            Working...
            X