Unconfigured Ad

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • willemate
    Junior Member
    • Mar 2014
    • 9

    #1

    RNAseq vs Microarray

    Hi everyone!

    I am new to this forum because I started working with rnaseq & microarray analysis.

    I have carbonstarvation data of an organism. I have the rnaseq and microarray data of 4 different conditions (day 0, day1, day3, day6)
    I have the analyzed the DEG by Affy and DESeq.

    The rnaseq results are in a csv file and the microarray results are in a text file

    > colnames(RNAseq.data_df)
    [1] "ID" "mean.d0" "mean.d1" "mean.d3" "mean.d6" "FC.d1.d0" "FC.d3.d0"
    [8] "FC.d6.d0" "logFC.d1.d0" "logFC.d3.d0" "logFC.d6.d0" "pval.d1.d0" "pval.d3.d0" "pval.d6.d0"
    [15] "qval.d1.d0" "qval.d3.d0" "qval.d6.d0"

    > colnames(MA.data)
    [1] "X" "GSM542228.CEL.gz"
    [3] "GSM542335.CEL.gz" "GSM542336.CEL.gz"
    [5] "GSM971682_080805MJA_ANIGERa_100480_03.CEL.gz" "GSM971683_080805MJA_ANIGERa_100480_07.CEL.gz"
    [7] "GSM971684_080805MJA_ANIGERa_100480_04.CEL.gz" "GSM971685_080805MJA_ANIGERa_100480_08.CEL.gz"
    [9] "GSM971686_080805MJA_ANIGERa_100480_05.CEL.gz" "GSM971687_080805MJA_ANIGERa_100480_09.CEL.gz"
    [11] "mean.d0" "mean.d1"
    [13] "mean.d3" "mean.d6"
    [15] "FC.d1...d0" "FC.d3...d0"
    [17] "FC.d6...d0" "pValue.d1...d0"
    [19] "pValue.d3...d0" "pValue.d6...d0"
    [21] "qValue.d1...d0" "qValue.d3...d0"
    [23] "qValue.d6...d0"

    I would like to make a Venn-diagram to compare the 2 datasets. I really dont know where to start and how to make the data comparable. Does anyone has any tips?

    Thank you!
  • dpryan
    Devon Ryan
    • Jul 2011
    • 3478

    #2
    The general idea would be to convert the probe IDs on the array to whatever format you used for the counting in DESeq. So if you used Ensembl gene IDs then that'd be the proper ID to convert things to. There are usually packages in Bioconductor to make this easier. One common issue is that microarrays will have multiple probes for the same gene, so it's not always clear how to summarize these in a coherent way.

    Comment

    • dariober
      Senior Member
      • May 2010
      • 311

      #3
      Originally posted by dpryan View Post
      One common issue is that microarrays will have multiple probes for the same gene, so it's not always clear how to summarize these in a coherent way.
      Indeed. Given how much data analysis has been done in and around microarrays, I find surprising how this issue has been left essentially unresolved (neglected?). Especially considering that probes on the same gene, if not on the same exon, might not agree too much in terms of logFC. (Happy to be proved wrong...!)

      Comment

      • willemate
        Junior Member
        • Mar 2014
        • 9

        #4
        Thank you both for your input. I did not know that I had to go back to the raw counts to make the data comparable. I'm still thinking of a good way to compare the data and a package that I can use. Do you have any experience with this kind of experiments?

        Comment

        • Wallysb01
          Senior Member
          • Feb 2011
          • 286

          #5
          Originally posted by dariober View Post
          Indeed. Given how much data analysis has been done in and around microarrays, I find surprising how this issue has been left essentially unresolved (neglected?). Especially considering that probes on the same gene, if not on the same exon, might not agree too much in terms of logFC. (Happy to be proved wrong...!)
          I think the you basically said why this isn’t done much. People don’t really combine their RNA-seq and microarray data, rather RNA-seq data replaces the microarray data. Expression arrays are a pain to deal with and just aren’t anywhere as good as RNA-seq, so why even bother? Maybe you can see it like RNA-seq can validate the positives in your expression array, but I wouldn’t care about anything that was DE in your RNA-seq not “replicating” in your expression array (and I mean that in the way that I’d still want to keep those RNA-seq only DE genes).

          BTW, though, to willemate, once you get those probe IDs, which you can also do in Biomart, to the correct gene name, you can just use the linux command “join”. If you’re already in R, you can do this there too, but personally, I already know how to use join, so I’ve just done it that way.

          And you can print unpairable lines in either or both data sets, as well as deal with duplicates, where for multiple array probes, you just print the same gene level RNAseq data in all rows with probes for that gene. So if you must, just do that. But remember you need to sort your files by the column you join on so it might be something like this:

          Code:
          sort -k1,1 array.data.txt > array.data.sort.txt
          sort -k1,1 RNAseq.data.txt > RNAseq.data.sort.txt
          join -j1 -a1 -o #your_output_column_format array.datat,sort.txt RNAseq.data.sort.txt > joined.txt
          You can read up on how the -o option needs to be formatted. But basically, its comma separated list of the file name dot the column name for the new column order to go into the output.

          Ie. 1.1,2.2,1.2 would print the first column of the first file, then the second column of the second file, then second column of the first file in columns 1-3 in the new file respectively.

          You can even use join to merge a biomart export of the conversion table of Affi (or who ever) probe ids to gene names first.

          Comment

          • willemate
            Junior Member
            • Mar 2014
            • 9

            #6
            Thank you for your input Wallysb. I found a paper (link, fig3 &5) where they compute a compare study comparable to mine. It is just weird that I cannot find any Bioconductor CaseStudy information about this. I guess I should compute a Spearman/Pearson correlation and correlate the FCs in some way...?


            http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/tx200103b

            Comment

            • willemate
              Junior Member
              • Mar 2014
              • 9

              #7
              "To perform correlations between the DEGs patterns from the two platforms, common sets of genes were selected, which were above the detectable threshold and common to both the platforms"

              Gaucher disease type 1, an inherited lysosomal storage disorder, is caused by mutations in GBA1 leading to defective glucocerebrosidase (GCase) function and consequent excess accumulation of glucosylceramide/glucosylsphingosine in visceral organs. ...

              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

              ad_right_rmr

              Collapse

              News

              Collapse

              Topics Statistics Last Post
              Started by SEQadmin2, Yesterday, 10:35 AM
              0 responses
              7 views
              0 reactions
              Last Post SEQadmin2  
              Started by SEQadmin2, 08-06-2026, 07:41 AM
              0 responses
              24 views
              0 reactions
              Last Post SEQadmin2  
              Started by SEQadmin2, 08-03-2026, 10:13 AM
              0 responses
              43 views
              0 reactions
              Last Post SEQadmin2  
              Started by SEQadmin2, 07-31-2026, 02:55 AM
              0 responses
              48 views
              0 reactions
              Last Post SEQadmin2  
              Working...