Unconfigured Ad

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • RobbenStijn
    Member
    • Feb 2017
    • 12

    Statistical analysis gene expression correlation

    Dear all,

    I've got a zinc finger protein (znf479) that binds on 920 genes in the brain. We hypothesize that the binding of this protein on a gene inhibits the transcription of these genes.

    To prove this we checked the correlation of the expression of these genes with the expression of the zinc finger protein. We found that around 62% of the expression of the genes that znf479 binds on is negatively correlated with the expression of znf479.
    This is interesting because when we looked at the distribution of all expressional correlations of the genes in the brain is was around 60% POSITIVE and 40% NEGATIVE.

    We now want to use a statistical test to check if this is just coincidence, or that it is possible to say that znf479 inhibits gene expression to some extend. We obtained all the correlation values from brainspan.com.

    Any help would be greatly appreciated!

    Cheers,

    Stijn
  • Richard Finney
    Senior Member
    • Feb 2009
    • 701

    #2
    Well.

    What's the number of genes used in the 60/40 ratio calculation of "other" genes?

    NB: correlation != causation. Even if you get a p-value, it's not "proof".

    You'll need to do careful experiments to provide convincing evidence that your zinc finger is doing interesting things.

    Comment

    • RobbenStijn
      Member
      • Feb 2017
      • 12

      #3
      The number of "other" genes is around 60000 (all from the brainspan data). Would you recommend a statistical test?

      I know it's not proof, but an indication would suffice. Thank you very much for your help.

      Comment

      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
      7 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...