Unconfigured Ad

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • shangzhong0619
    Member
    • Nov 2013
    • 17

    HTseq-count feature type choice for RNAseq

    Hi all,
    I am using HTseq-count to count reads in my bam files. I used ncbi mouse annotation file.
    I wonder which feature type (third column of gff3 file) I should use?
    My understanding of how htseq count reads is that if I choose 'exon', then it will count reads only mapping to exons and sum those up for a gene. If I choose 'gene', it will count all the reads mapping to introns and exons of that gene. Theoretically, for RNAseq I should choose exons, and ignore reads mapping to introns.
    In my sample, I know I knock out the gene ext1. I tried both choices and used DEseq2 to do differential expression analysis. In my results which I chose the 'gene' feature, the ext1 gene was the most significant gene. However, in the results for choosing 'exon', there are over 200 genes more significant than ext1. So now I am confused, it seems that the 'gene' feature are better than 'exon'? Anyone has this situation before? thanks.
  • dpryan
    Devon Ryan
    • Jul 2011
    • 3478

    #2
    You'll want to use 'exon', otherwise you increase the noise from pre-mRNAs. I'm not sure why you would be disturbed to find other genes with more significant p-values than the knocked out gene. There are a few different things that affect one's ability to determine variance and the signal level (in this case, how highly expressed a gene is) is one of them. Since you're knocking the gene out, its expression should be very low in some of your samples (I'm assuming a complete knock out rather than just hemizygous), so you'll then have less power there to begin with. If this causes some other decently expressed gene to drastically increase expression then said other gene will probably have a smaller p-value. That's not really a problem.

    Comment

    • shangzhong0619
      Member
      • Nov 2013
      • 17

      #3
      Originally posted by dpryan View Post
      You'll want to use 'exon', otherwise you increase the noise from pre-mRNAs. I'm not sure why you would be disturbed to find other genes with more significant p-values than the knocked out gene. There are a few different things that affect one's ability to determine variance and the signal level (in this case, how highly expressed a gene is) is one of them. Since you're knocking the gene out, its expression should be very low in some of your samples (I'm assuming a complete knock out rather than just hemizygous), so you'll then have less power there to begin with. If this causes some other decently expressed gene to drastically increase expression then said other gene will probably have a smaller p-value. That's not really a problem.
      Hi, dpryan. Thanks for your reply. Actually my knock out is hemizygous, so in this case, it is possible to have genes more significant than the knock out gene?

      Comment

      • dpryan
        Devon Ryan
        • Jul 2011
        • 3478

        #4
        Sure and for the reasons that I mentioned. Remember that the p-value just relates to believability of the finding given the data. Further, changes in biology are typically non-linear, so a 50% decrease in the knocked out gene could easily lead to larger changes in others. Not to mention that a hemizygous deletion will often not halve the expression.

        Comment

        Latest Articles

        Collapse

        • SEQadmin2
          Cancer Drug Resistance: The Lingering Barrier to Rising Survival
          by SEQadmin2



          Cancer survival rates have significantly increased in the last few decades in the United States, reaching a combined 70% 5-year survival rate by 2021. Behind this number, there are years of research to find new therapies, drug targets, and early detection methods. But there is one core challenge that keeps slowing down these advances, and it’s about drug resistance.

          There is no single reason why many patients don’t respond to treatment as expected. Cancer is...
          Today, 05:17 AM
        • GATTACAT
          Reply to Nine Things a Sample Prep Scientist Thinks About Before Sequencing
          by GATTACAT
          Love this - good data definitely starts from good input, and poor input can only give relatively poor data. I particularly like the mention of Nanodrop/absorbance based methods for quantification. It's such a toss up if you'll get an accurate reading or what amounts to a randomly generated number, and a lot of library/sequencing related issues can be traced back to poor quant.
          07-01-2026, 11:43 AM
        • SEQadmin2
          Nine Things a Sample Prep Scientist Thinks About Before Sequencing
          by SEQadmin2


          I’m not a sequencing expert. I’m a purification scientist who uses NGS to evaluate workflows my group develops. With this perspective, we think about the sample first and the NGS workflow second. The sequencer is an exceptionally honest reporter, but it can only report on what you give it, so whether you get clean, interpretable data from an NGS workflow is largely determined before you begin.

          Here are nine questions we think about, in roughly the order they matter, before...
          06-18-2026, 07:11 AM

        ad_right_rmr

        Collapse

        News

        Collapse

        Topics Statistics Last Post
        Started by SEQadmin2, Today, 10:08 AM
        0 responses
        6 views
        0 reactions
        Last Post SEQadmin2  
        Started by SEQadmin2, Yesterday, 11:05 AM
        0 responses
        8 views
        0 reactions
        Last Post SEQadmin2  
        Started by SEQadmin2, 07-02-2026, 11:08 AM
        0 responses
        31 views
        0 reactions
        Last Post SEQadmin2  
        Started by SEQadmin2, 06-30-2026, 05:37 AM
        0 responses
        29 views
        0 reactions
        Last Post SEQadmin2  
        Working...