Unconfigured Ad

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • lei
    Member
    • Mar 2010
    • 14

    #1

    a question about Saturation analysis in MEDIPS

    hi,
    I am now using MEDIPS for MCIP-seq analysis.
    For the Saturation analysis, I don't know how to explain the results. So which value I should focuse in order to answer the question that how many reads is sufficient for further analysises?
    for example, here are the results for two samples, how to know whether the reads number is enough or not.

    sample 1:

    $distinctSets
    [,1] [,2]
    [1,] 0 0.0000000
    [2,] 421516 0.4890383
    [3,] 843032 0.6566207
    [4,] 1264548 0.7414630
    [5,] 1686064 0.7923945
    [6,] 2107580 0.8271925
    [7,] 2529096 0.8514569
    [8,] 2950612 0.8699040
    [9,] 3372128 0.8844299
    [10,] 3793644 0.8959736
    [11,] 4215166 0.9053887

    $estimation
    [,1] [,2]
    [1,] 0 0.0000000
    [2,] 421516 0.4972269
    [3,] 843032 0.6631622
    [4,] 1264548 0.7467590
    [5,] 1686064 0.7974522
    [6,] 2107580 0.8311024
    [7,] 2529096 0.8552331
    [8,] 2950612 0.8731673
    [9,] 3372128 0.8873165
    [10,] 3793644 0.8985876
    [11,] 4215160 0.9077852
    [12,] 4636676 0.9153314
    [13,] 5058192 0.9218284
    [14,] 5479708 0.9274455
    [15,] 5901224 0.9323282
    [16,] 6322740 0.9365573
    [17,] 6744256 0.9402298
    [18,] 7165772 0.9434950
    [19,] 7587288 0.9465256
    [20,] 8008804 0.9491727
    [21,] 8430333 0.9516126

    $numberReads
    [1] 8430333

    $maxEstCor
    [1] 8.430333e+06 9.516126e-01

    $maxTruCor
    [1] 4.215166e+06 9.053887e-01

    sample 2:

    $distinctSets
    [,1] [,2]
    [1,] 0 0.0000000
    [2,] 677985 0.6015521
    [3,] 1355970 0.7518315
    [4,] 2033955 0.8192142
    [5,] 2711940 0.8577985
    [6,] 3389925 0.8830463
    [7,] 4067910 0.9005583
    [8,] 4745895 0.9136279
    [9,] 5423880 0.9235792
    [10,] 6101865 0.9314847
    [11,] 6779856 0.9379848

    $estimation
    [,1] [,2]
    [1,] 0 0.0000000
    [2,] 677985 0.6054022
    [3,] 1355970 0.7542983
    [4,] 2033955 0.8216820
    [5,] 2711940 0.8597790
    [6,] 3389925 0.8845496
    [7,] 4067910 0.9017873
    [8,] 4745895 0.9148084
    [9,] 5423880 0.9246916
    [10,] 6101865 0.9325375
    [11,] 6779850 0.9387990
    [12,] 7457835 0.9440903
    [13,] 8135820 0.9485184
    [14,] 8813805 0.9523514
    [15,] 9491790 0.9555902
    [16,] 10169775 0.9585080
    [17,] 10847760 0.9609586
    [18,] 11525745 0.9631440
    [19,] 12203730 0.9651430
    [20,] 12881715 0.9669121
    [21,] 13559713 0.9684958

    $numberReads
    [1] 13559713

    $maxEstCor
    [1] 1.355971e+07 9.684958e-01

    $maxTruCor
    [1] 6.779856e+06 9.379848e-01

    Thanks for your help!
  • nilshomer
    Nils Homer
    • Nov 2008
    • 1283

    #2
    Please do not cross post.

    Comment

    • NearyJL78
      Member
      • Feb 2011
      • 14

      #3
      EDIT - the paragraph below is referring to the next steps in MEDIPS analysis, sorry! I'm typing the answer to your question (AS I UNDERSTAND IT) after the ***


      I am just starting with MEDIPS also, also looking at MeDIP-seq data. I am still somewhat puzzled by the analysis, but I know the higher the correlation values the better. Roughly, they represent how much your sample has been enriched for CpGs if you imagine the genome to have a value of 1. The higher above one you are, the more likely the beads are pulling out what you want (methylated CpGs). That being said, I am not sure which correlation value is the more important one. The author of the program is quick to respond and was helpful for some of my questions.
      Best of luck!



      ***
      You are looking at genomic coverage essentially - whether the entire genome is covered by your reads or not. Again, the higher the value the better, but you'd want at least one. The way the math is done in the program, your reads are divided into two groups, A and B. The true correlation is the coverage using half your reads. The estimated correlation is half your reads but doubled... so essentially you would expect your true genome coverage to be somewhere in between. Most alignment programs will also give you a coverage value. The main thing is you want to make sure you are covering the reference ENOUGH, without overkill because that wastes money on sequencing. What value range you need really depends on your experiment. In our case we like to see at least 10x but less than 50x coverage, and if we are seeing too much coverage we will multiplex several samples into one lane of the sequencing plate.

      I hope this helps! Sorry for the mix-up.
      Last edited by NearyJL78; 05-09-2011, 12:21 PM.

      Comment

      • NearyJL78
        Member
        • Feb 2011
        • 14

        #4
        Also, its the second number (.93-.96 in your case) that you might be looking at. That represents the reproducibility of the experiment with you current conditions... if you look at the graph you can get an idea how many reads you need to have to reproduce your experiment completely. If that number is too low (on a scale of 0-1) you might want to consider additional sequencing of the same material. In your data it looks to be sufficient in my opinion.

        Comment

        Latest Articles

        Collapse

        • SEQadmin2
          Beyond CRISPR/Cas9: Understand, Choose, and Use the Right Genome Editing Tool
          by SEQadmin2



          CRISPR/Cas9 sparked the gene editing revolution for both research and therapeutics.1 But this system still showed severe issues that limited its applications. The most prominent were the heavy reliance on PAM sequences, delivery limitations, double-stranded breaks that prompt unintended edits and cell death, and editing inefficiency (both in targeting and in knock-in reliability).

          Despite this, “CRISPR helped turn genome editing from a specialized technique into
          ...
          07-31-2026, 11:01 AM
        • SEQadmin2
          Proteomic Platforms: How to Choose the Right Analytical Strategy to Improve Detection and Clinical Applications
          by SEQadmin2


          Proteomics platforms are evolving rapidly, with advances in mass spectrometry and affinity-based approaches expanding what researchers can detect and at what scale. As the field moves toward deeper proteome coverage and clinical applications, scientists face an increasingly complex landscape of tools. This article will explore how researchers are navigating these choices to find the right platform for their work.

          The systematic characterization of the human proteome has
          ...
          07-20-2026, 11:48 AM
        • SEQadmin2
          Advanced Sequencing Platforms Tackle Neuroscience’s Toughest Genomics Problems
          by SEQadmin2



          Genomics studies in neuroscience face a special challenge due to the brain’s complexity and scarcity of samples. Mapping changes in cell type and state using conventional next-generation sequencing methods remains challenging. Advances in technologies like single-cell sequencing, spatial transcriptomics, and long-read sequencing have opened the door to deeper studies of the brain and diseases like Alzheimer’s, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), and schizophrenia.
          ...
          07-09-2026, 11:10 AM

        ad_right_rmr

        Collapse

        News

        Collapse

        Topics Statistics Last Post
        Started by SEQadmin2, 08-03-2026, 10:13 AM
        0 responses
        15 views
        0 reactions
        Last Post SEQadmin2  
        Started by SEQadmin2, 07-31-2026, 02:55 AM
        0 responses
        32 views
        0 reactions
        Last Post SEQadmin2  
        Started by SEQadmin2, 07-24-2026, 12:17 PM
        0 responses
        23 views
        0 reactions
        Last Post SEQadmin2  
        Started by SEQadmin2, 07-23-2026, 11:41 AM
        0 responses
        21 views
        0 reactions
        Last Post SEQadmin2  
        Working...