Header Leaderboard Ad

Collapse

discrepance in DESeq2 results with different design structures

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse

SEQanswers June Challenge Has Begun!

The competition has begun! We're giving away a $50 Amazon gift card to the member who answers the most questions on our site during the month. We want to encourage our community members to share their knowledge and help each other out by answering questions related to sequencing technologies, genomics, and bioinformatics. The competition is open to all members of the site, and the winner will be announced at the beginning of July. Best of luck!

For a list of the official rules, visit (https://www.seqanswers.com/forum/sit...wledge-and-win)
See more
See less
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • discrepance in DESeq2 results with different design structures

    Hi,

    I am doing a DESeq2 analysis using a data set of nine different conditions/time-points.
    I first ran the analysis with the complete data set in the count table and than have used the results function to extract the pair-wise results of the DE analysis.
    Code:
    >count_table <- read.delim2("count_table_complete.txt",row.names=1)
    
    >colData <- read.delim2("metaData.txt")
    >levels(colData$condition)
    [1] "CR4W0h"  "CR4W24h" "CR4W4h"  "CTRL0h"  "CTRL24h" "CTRL4h"  "HP0h"    "HP24h"   "HP4h"   
    
    >cds <- DESeqDataSetFromMatrix (
      countData= count_table[,-1],
      colData    = colData,  
      design     = ~condition )
    
    >fit = DESeq(cds)
    
    >res = results(fit, contrast=c("condition", "CTRL0h" , "HP0h") )
    > res
    log2 fold change (MAP): condition CTRL0h vs HP0h 
    Wald test p-value: condition CTRL0h vs HP0h 
    DataFrame with 39179 rows and 6 columns
                          baseMean log2FoldChange      lfcSE       stat     pvalue      padj
                         <numeric>      <numeric>  <numeric>  <numeric>  <numeric> <numeric>
    ENSMUSG00000000001 [B][COLOR="Red"]3093.215856[/COLOR][/B]    0.002814819 0.08192671 0.03435777 0.97259186  0.998355
    When doing so, I get only 3 genes with an adjusted p-value below 0.05
    Code:
    >table(res$padj<=0.05)
    
    FALSE  TRUE 
     1956     3
    But if i ran the same analysis with the subset of the data which contains only the columns from the count table for "CTRL0h" and "HP0h" I get many more significant genes.

    Code:
    > count_table <- read.delim2("count_table_complete.txt",row.names=1)
    > count_subset <- count_table[,c(2:5,23:26)]
    > head(count_subset)
                        C20  C22  C23  C24 HP10 HP11 HP12 HP14
    ENSMUSG00000000001 2811 2360 3053 3334 2636 2736 2505 3282
    
    > colData_subset <- colData[c(1:4, 23:26),]  
    
    >cds_subset <- DESeqDataSetFromMatrix (
      countData= count_subset,
      colData    = colData_subset,  
      design     = ~condition )
    
    >fit_subset = DESeq(cds_subset)
    
    >res_subset = results(fit_subset, contrast=c("condition", "CTRL0h" , "HP0h") )
    > res_subset
    log2 fold change (MAP): condition CTRL0h vs HP0h 
    Wald test p-value: condition CTRL0h vs HP0h 
    DataFrame with 39179 rows and 6 columns
                           baseMean log2FoldChange      lfcSE       stat      pvalue      padj
                          <numeric>      <numeric>  <numeric>  <numeric>   <numeric> <numeric>
    ENSMUSG00000000001 [B][COLOR="Red"]2810.6322989 [/COLOR][/B]  -0.003504429 0.05504337 -0.0636667 0.949235621 0.9938743
    
    > table(res$padj<= 0.05)
    
    FALSE  TRUE 
    13122   321
    first I see a difference in the baseMean values. I guess this might be because for some of the conditions/TP I have more samples than the others, so that the baseMean is calculated differently (Am I correct in this assumption?)

    But I can't figure out why I get such a big different in the number of DE genes between the two approaches.

    Is it because of the differences in the independent filtering step, DESeq2 is automatically doing?
    I have tried to deactivate the independent filtering in the results function, but it didn't make the results better.

    Any other suggestions?

    thanks,
    Assa

  • #2
    I will answer on your post @ bioc support site today

    Comment

    Latest Articles

    Collapse

    ad_right_rmr

    Collapse

    News

    Collapse

    Topics Statistics Last Post
    Started by seqadmin, 06-01-2023, 08:56 PM
    0 responses
    9 views
    0 likes
    Last Post seqadmin  
    Started by seqadmin, 06-01-2023, 07:33 AM
    0 responses
    8 views
    0 likes
    Last Post seqadmin  
    Started by seqadmin, 05-31-2023, 07:50 AM
    0 responses
    4 views
    0 likes
    Last Post seqadmin  
    Started by seqadmin, 05-26-2023, 09:22 AM
    0 responses
    11 views
    0 likes
    Last Post seqadmin  
    Working...
    X