Seqanswers Leaderboard Ad

Collapse

Announcement

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

  • 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.

  • #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


    • #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


      • #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

        • seqadmin
          Essential Discoveries and Tools in Epitranscriptomics
          by seqadmin




          The field of epigenetics has traditionally concentrated more on DNA and how changes like methylation and phosphorylation of histones impact gene expression and regulation. However, our increased understanding of RNA modifications and their importance in cellular processes has led to a rise in epitranscriptomics research. “Epitranscriptomics brings together the concepts of epigenetics and gene expression,” explained Adrien Leger, PhD, Principal Research Scientist...
          04-22-2024, 07:01 AM
        • seqadmin
          Current Approaches to Protein Sequencing
          by seqadmin


          Proteins are often described as the workhorses of the cell, and identifying their sequences is key to understanding their role in biological processes and disease. Currently, the most common technique used to determine protein sequences is mass spectrometry. While still a valuable tool, mass spectrometry faces several limitations and requires a highly experienced scientist familiar with the equipment to operate it. Additionally, other proteomic methods, like affinity assays, are constrained...
          04-04-2024, 04:25 PM

        ad_right_rmr

        Collapse

        News

        Collapse

        Topics Statistics Last Post
        Started by seqadmin, Yesterday, 08:47 AM
        0 responses
        14 views
        0 likes
        Last Post seqadmin  
        Started by seqadmin, 04-11-2024, 12:08 PM
        0 responses
        60 views
        0 likes
        Last Post seqadmin  
        Started by seqadmin, 04-10-2024, 10:19 PM
        0 responses
        60 views
        0 likes
        Last Post seqadmin  
        Started by seqadmin, 04-10-2024, 09:21 AM
        0 responses
        54 views
        0 likes
        Last Post seqadmin  
        Working...
        X