Unconfigured Ad

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • human_urostor
    Junior Member
    • Mar 2016
    • 1

    Cuffdiff confidence intervals - relative quantitation

    Hi all,

    I have not found any answers to this kind of question anywhere so I have to ask.
    I've done RNA-seq and analyzed it in tophat/cuffdiff (then cummeRbund but this is irrelevant here). I also did RT-qPCR on some genes to cross-validate my findings. My reference gene for RT-qPCR was one that was moderately, evenly expressed in all my samples (judging from FPKM). The expression level of all of my other genes was therefore noted as a fraction of the expression level of my reference gene in the same sample (RQ).

    To make a figure comparing the results from those two methods, I want to present the expression levels for genes of interest from RNA-seq as fractions of expression level of my reference gene too.

    My problem is: how to calculate the uncertainty in the relative FPKM value? From the research I have done, if FDR is left at 0.05, cuffdiff reports 95% confidence intervals calculated as in this paper: http://bioinformatics.oxfordjournals.../1026.abstract

    I have found two methods of calculating uncertainty when dividing two values.
    Method one: http://www.math-mate.com/chapter34_4.shtml (subsection "Division with two numbers with large errors – long method")
    Method two (let R be the relative expression): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propag...ce_measurement

    The problem with the first one is that (using my mathematical common sense) I would get a 95%*95%=90% CI, the resulting uncertainties seem too huge, and it seems not to be supported by any literature. The problem with the second method is that I need to use standard deviation, and the 95% CI is not exactly the SD.

    I would appreciate any help.

Latest Articles

Collapse

  • 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, Yesterday, 11:08 AM
0 responses
6 views
0 reactions
Last Post SEQadmin2  
Started by SEQadmin2, 06-30-2026, 05:37 AM
0 responses
11 views
0 reactions
Last Post SEQadmin2  
Started by SEQadmin2, 06-26-2026, 11:10 AM
0 responses
19 views
0 reactions
Last Post SEQadmin2  
Started by SEQadmin2, 06-17-2026, 06:09 AM
0 responses
53 views
0 reactions
Last Post SEQadmin2  
Working...