Header Leaderboard Ad

Collapse

RNA-seq and normalization numbers

Collapse

Announcement

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by syambmed View Post
    Hi guys,
    I have trancriptome data from Illumina and am using CLC Genomic workbench for data analysis. I dont know or not familiar with other programs for transcriptome analysis. the data are from 1 sample of control cells and 1 sample of treated cells (no replicate for each sample) and I am looking for differently express genes.
    If I was a reviewer I would doubt any conclusion coming from an experiment with no biological replicates. Anyhow, DESeq allows for such design, you may wanna consider it. I am not familiar with CLC Genomic workbench.

    Comment


    • #47
      Method to categorize mRNA-seq data based upon expression value

      Hello All,
      I have a pre processed mRNA-seq data for hg19 genome, in which for each gene the RPKM value is calculated. The value ranges from 99960 to zero. I have just one sample.
      I want to categorise these genes into highly, medium and weakly expressed genes.
      What could be the best way to do it?
      Your suggestions would be highly appreciated.
      Thanks a lot.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by sikidiri View Post
        Hello All,
        I have a pre processed mRNA-seq data for hg19 genome, in which for each gene the RPKM value is calculated. The value ranges from 99960 to zero. I have just one sample.
        I want to categorise these genes into highly, medium and weakly expressed genes.
        What could be the best way to do it?
        Your suggestions would be highly appreciated.
        Thanks a lot.
        As RPKM is a normalized expression measurement so you can in theory directly compare values between genes within the same sample -keeping in mind a couple of reported biases like the size of the gene, GC content, etc.

        I would first sort the values and use percentiles ("tiers") to define categories with a similar population and inspect the threshold values.
        You may also want to consider absolute thresholds (like "RPKM<1", "1<RPKM<10" and "10<RPKM") but I do not know if there are "standards" for such values and I actually doubt that it is in practice reasonable to use values obtained from different protocols/conditions/software/etc..

        Comment


        • #49
          Hello Steven,
          Thanks for your answer. But how to decide about the threshold to make these categories based upon expression is my main problem. Do you think any statistical tests would help me. Any paper/example would help me understand this better.
          Thanks again.

          Comment


          • #50
            It's been a while since I've done it, but if you google "cluster optimal group number" you can find methods for gap calculations and other things to find an optimal cluster number. I recall there being R packages for a lot of this stuff, such as the cluster package.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by lpachter View Post
              Thats correct- the procedure RCJ suggests will give you an estimate of the actual tag count for each transcript.

              Is this to say that if one sums up the (FPKM * length in kb * reads mapped in millions ) of each transcript in a gene, one would obtain the total *estimated* read count for that gene?

              But this has to be done individually for each transcript and then grouped into a gene, right?


              Carmen

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Simon Anders View Post

                If I don't care about isoforms or think that my coverage is too low to distinguish isoforms anyway, I expect to get optimal power by simply summing everything up.
                Please see Figure 1 of http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/va...0.html#/figure

                Originally posted by Simon Anders View Post

                Cuffdiff is, as I understand it, designed to deal with such issues, while our approach ignores them. I expect that DESeq, in compensation for being unsuitable to detect differences in isoform proportions as in your example, achieves much better detection power for differences in total expression (per gene, summing over isoforms), especially at very low counts.
                Please see Figure 3 of
                http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/va...0.html#/figure

                Originally posted by Simon Anders View Post

                As I am not clear on how biological noise is taken into account by cuffdiff I cannot be fully sure whether this expectation will hold (and I'm quite curious to learn more about cuffdiff once your paper is out).
                Please see
                http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/va...0.html#/figure

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by lpachter View Post
                  It's important to note the limitations of raw-count methods, but has anyone done anything to check to see if any of the isoform-detection algorithms can actually discriminate between isoforms well enough to assign those counts properly? I've seen simulated data that showed RSEM incapable of reproducing 'truth' half the time with even simple 2-isoform mixes.

                  Cufflinks' model in figure 2 has three times more counts than figure 1 and doesn't differentiate anywhere near as cleanly between isoforms. Surely maximum-likelihood count assignment can be incorrect, too, given ambiguous reads? Looking at the supplementals, however, I'm inclined to accept that it may be incorrect less often than raw counts when dealing with real data.

                  Comment

                  Latest Articles

                  Collapse

                  • seqadmin
                    A Brief Overview and Common Challenges in Single-cell Sequencing Analysis
                    by seqadmin


                    ​​​​​​The introduction of single-cell sequencing has advanced the ability to study cell-to-cell heterogeneity. Its use has improved our understanding of somatic mutations1, cell lineages2, cellular diversity and regulation3, and development in multicellular organisms4. Single-cell sequencing encompasses hundreds of techniques with different approaches to studying the genomes, transcriptomes, epigenomes, and other omics of individual cells. The analysis of single-cell sequencing data i...

                    01-24-2023, 01:19 PM
                  • seqadmin
                    Introduction to Single-Cell Sequencing
                    by seqadmin
                    Single-cell sequencing is a technique used to investigate the genome, transcriptome, epigenome, and other omics of individual cells using high-throughput sequencing. This technology has provided many scientific breakthroughs and continues to be applied across many fields, including microbiology, oncology, immunology, neurobiology, precision medicine, and stem cell research.

                    The advancement of single-cell sequencing began in 2009 when Tang et al. investigated the single-cell transcriptomes
                    ...
                    01-09-2023, 03:10 PM
                  • seqadmin
                    AVITI from Element Biosciences: Latest Sequencing Technologies—Part 6
                    by seqadmin
                    Element Biosciences made its sequencing market debut this year when it released AVITI, its first sequencer. The AVITI System uses avidity sequencing, a novel sequencing chemistry that delivers higher quality data, decreases cycle times, and requires lower reagent concentrations. This new instrument reportedly features lower operating and start-up costs while maintaining quality sequencing.

                    Read type and length
                    AVITI is a short-read benchtop sequencer that also offers an innovative...
                    12-29-2022, 10:44 AM

                  ad_right_rmr

                  Collapse
                  Working...
                  X