DESeq2 fitType question
1
0
Entering edit mode
evelas13 • 0
@evelas13-24082
Last seen 4.2 years ago

Hello,

I was trying to do a DESeq2 analysis on pyrosequence data that i have, and I'm trying different software in the DE analysis. In DEseq2 my DE genes were too low, my mean counts are low too since the median is less than 10, and i have 2 replicates in one condition and 4 in the other one. So I was trying to get a little more DE genes like the other softwares playing with the options and if i used the FitType=local then the DE went up a little bit, from another question answered here (https://support.bioconductor.org/p/81094/) I read that you could see if the dispersionplot got better or not. In my opinion it is better with local but I want to be sure and also be able to do it numerically, so how do I get the Genedispest? Is it something like this : mcols(dds)$dispGeneEst and ghow do i get the Dispfit, Sorry I'm kind of new with R and I would be thankful if somebody could help!

Here are my plots:

Local:https://ibb.co/TMsTSN1

Parametric: https://ibb.co/XD4qJc7

deseq2 • 951 views
ADD COMMENT
1
Entering edit mode
@mikelove
Last seen 4 days ago
United States

Both fits look similar to me. The default is to use parametric unless the fitting procedure fails and then local is substituted.

In general I wouldn’t recommend this part though: “ So I was trying to get a little more DE genes like the other softwares playing with the options”

You will lose error control this way.

ADD COMMENT
0
Entering edit mode

Thank you very much with the quick response! I'll use the normal pipeline

ADD REPLY
0
Entering edit mode

Thank you very much with the quick response! I'll use the normal pipeline

ADD REPLY
0
Entering edit mode

Hello Michael and sorry for the inconvenience, but as I was organizing my results and corroborating them I didn't pre-filter the data and use the normal pipeline, and in that normal pipeline the fitType automatically set itself to local, so if i filter or not pre-filter the data the functions used change, the pre-filtering I used was:

keep <- rowSums(counts(dds)>= 5) >= 4

I think its better to pre-filter but in one post(https://support.bioconductor.org/p/92455/) I read that it was unnecessary and that the packages used independent filtering internally, and it was mostly used to speed up the processing. So I don't know If I should be more cautious and examine Cooks distance better or just don't mind this observation

ADD REPLY
0
Entering edit mode

Pre-filtering is not a problem. You can pre-filter. But it’s hard to say what is the “right” choice per dataset. Mostly you don’t want to try too many choices post hoc in order to find small pvalues.

ADD REPLY

Login before adding your answer.

Traffic: 512 users visited in the last hour
Help About
FAQ
Access RSS
API
Stats

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.

Powered by the version 2.3.6