Unconfigured Ad

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • mike_m
    Junior Member
    • Jan 2014
    • 1

    #1

    DESeq 2 shrinkage Wald test vs. LR test

    This is more a conceptual question to those in the know (particularly Mike Love, Simon Anders and Wolfgang Huber if you're reading).

    I'm doing a slightly quick a dirty analysis using DESeq2 to test for interactions between 3 biological conditions and expression changes over time (only between 2 time points, so one hope issues of sphericity/autocorrelation do not become an issue).

    The current implementation using the Wald test will, by default, apply a beta prior to moderate the effect sizes from the GLM. I understand the default implementation as the Wald test uses the effect size estimates to calculate the p-value that the effect is different from zero. The likelihood ratio test does not require an accurate effect size estimate as I understand it, therefore I assume that this is the reason there is no default implementation for the effect size estimate moderation, or is there a mathematical reason for this?

    Also, is there a way to extract the pre-moderated effect sizes in order to compare them to the moderated ones (regardless of which test is applied?).

    Thanks in advance.
  • Michael Love
    Senior Member
    • Jul 2013
    • 333

    #2
    hi Mike,

    Here's a post where I talk a bit about why we used the moderation of effect sizes only for the Wald test:

    Discussion of next-gen sequencing related bioinformatics: resources, algorithms, open source efforts, etc


    So it's default to have shrinkage with the Wald test, and no shrinkage with the LRT. Although both defaults can be overridden.

    Note that with interaction terms in the model, the shrinkage is only applied to the interaction terms (discussed in ?nbinomWaldTest and in the Methods of the preprint).

    There is a way to extract pre-moderated effect sizes in DESeq2 version 1.6, which will be released in October with Bioconductor v3.0. You simply:

    Code:
    results(dds, addMLE=TRUE)

    Comment

    Latest Articles

    Collapse

    • SEQadmin2
      16S/ITS Profiling vs. Shotgun Metagenomics: What Changes in Your Workflow?
      by SEQadmin2




      NGS has revolutionized clinical microbiology by offering new ways to identify and surveil pathogens without prior knowledge of the target. One popular approach is 16S rRNA and ITS amplicon sequencing, which targets specific microbial markers. But studies are increasingly incorporating shotgun metagenomics, a technique that sequences all DNA from a sample without targeting specific microbial markers. This approach allows more detailed taxonomic classification, detection...
      Today, 06:46 AM
    • 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

    ad_right_rmr

    Collapse

    News

    Collapse

    Topics Statistics Last Post
    Started by SEQadmin2, 10-28-2026, 09:57 AM
    0 responses
    23 views
    0 reactions
    Last Post SEQadmin2  
    Started by SEQadmin2, 10-28-2026, 09:51 AM
    0 responses
    15 views
    0 reactions
    Last Post SEQadmin2  
    Started by SEQadmin2, 10-22-2026, 11:13 AM
    0 responses
    68 views
    0 reactions
    Last Post SEQadmin2  
    Started by SEQadmin2, 10-22-2026, 10:48 AM
    0 responses
    48 views
    0 reactions
    Last Post SEQadmin2  
    Working...