Quantile normalization doesn't need an RGSet
. Why do you think that? From ?preprocessQuantile:
Usage:
preprocessQuantile(object, fixOutliers = TRUE, removeBadSamples = FALSE,
badSampleCutoff = 10.5, quantileNormalize = TRUE,
stratified = TRUE, mergeManifest = FALSE, sex = NULL,
verbose = TRUE)
Arguments:
object: An object of class 'RGChannelSet' or '[Genomic]MethylSet'.
And preprocessFunnorm
by default first calls preprocessNoob
, and then does an arguably better/smarter quantile normalization using the first N PCs of the background probes. So you could just use that. In addition, ?BMIQ (from wateRmelon
) says
Usage:
BMIQ(beta.v, design.v, nL = 3, doH = TRUE, nfit = 50000, th1.v = c(0.2, 0.75), th2.v = NULL, niter = 5, tol = 0.001, plots = TRUE, sampleID = 1, pri=TRUE)
## S4 method for signature 'MethyLumiSet'
BMIQ(beta.v, nL=3, doH=TRUE, nfit=5000, th1.v=c(0.2,0.75), th2.v=NULL, niter=5, tol=0.001, plots=FALSE, pri=FALSE )
CheckBMIQ(beta.v, design.v, pnbeta.v)
Arguments:
beta.v: vector consisting of beta-values for a given sample, or a
MethyLumiSet or MethylSet containing multiple samples. For
the MethyLumiSet and MethylSet methods, this is the only
required argument, and the function will be run on each
sample.
So you don't need a beta matrix for BMIQ
either.
Thanks James, so I can first use noob, then I get a MethylSet, then I can use preprocessQuantile or BMIQ. I guess I was also a bit confused because especially for BMIQ there are many different packages.
However, one more question: Normalization is always an issue with all the different possibilities. I decided to use Quantile or BMIQ and not Funnorm, because I have samples from the same tissue and also not sth like cancer-control. Isn't it the case that then Quantile is better than Funnorm (I refer to the study of Fortin et al. for example, or Liu& Sigmund who found that noob+BMIQ perform good)?
It's up to you which normalization you think is better. I wouldn't recommend using a support site to decide how best to analyze your data.