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.
Seqanswers Leaderboard Ad
Collapse
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
-
Originally posted by rndouglas View PostThis 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).
Leave a comment:
-
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.
Leave a comment:
-
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).
Leave a comment:
-
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.
Leave a comment:
-
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.'
Latest Articles
Collapse
-
by seqadmin
Despite advancements in sequencing platforms and related sample preparation technologies, certain sample types continue to present significant challenges that can compromise sequencing results. Pedro Echave, Senior Manager of the Global Business Segment at Revvity, explained that the success of a sequencing experiment ultimately depends on the amount and integrity of the nucleic acid template (RNA or DNA) obtained from a sample. “The better the quality of the nucleic acid isolated...-
Channel: Articles
03-22-2024, 06:39 AM -
-
by seqadmin
The field of conservation genomics centers on applying genomics technologies in support of conservation efforts and the preservation of biodiversity. This article features interviews with two researchers who showcase their innovative work and highlight the current state and future of conservation genomics.
Avian Conservation
Matthew DeSaix, a recent doctoral graduate from Kristen Ruegg’s lab at The University of Colorado, shared that most of his research...-
Channel: Articles
03-08-2024, 10:41 AM -
ad_right_rmr
Collapse
News
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by seqadmin, 03-27-2024, 06:37 PM
|
0 responses
13 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seqadmin
03-27-2024, 06:37 PM
|
||
Started by seqadmin, 03-27-2024, 06:07 PM
|
0 responses
11 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seqadmin
03-27-2024, 06:07 PM
|
||
Started by seqadmin, 03-22-2024, 10:03 AM
|
0 responses
53 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seqadmin
03-22-2024, 10:03 AM
|
||
Started by seqadmin, 03-21-2024, 07:32 AM
|
0 responses
69 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seqadmin
03-21-2024, 07:32 AM
|
Leave a comment: