limma: design for paired data with multiple time points
1
0
Entering edit mode
@jonathan-ellis-6561
Last seen 10.1 years ago
Dear list, I am analysing some microarrays with the limma package, and so far have discovered no significant DEGs. I'm unsure if this is because there really are no DEGs or I've misunderstood the limma package. I'm hoping someone with more experience can tell me if my analysis is correct, or, if not, where I've gone wrong. I have arrays collected at three time points (t0, t14 and t56) from the same patients, so I have a data frame that resembles: Patient Time 1 t0 1 t14 1 t56 2 t0 2 t14 2 t56 etc. and I'm interested in comparing t14 to t0, t56 to t0 and t56 to t14, whilst accounting for fact that array are from the same patient. My analysis has been: design <- model.matrix(~ 0 + Time + Patient) colnames(design) <- c('t0', 't14', 't56', 'p1', 'p2', 'p3', 'p4', 'p5', 'p6') array.weights <- arrayWeights(x.filtered, design) fitw <- lmFit(x.filtered, design, weights = array.weights) contrast.matrix <- makeContrasts(t14-t0, t56-t14, t56-t0, levels = design) fit2 <- contrasts.fit(fitw, contrast.matrix) fit2 <- eBayes(fit2) I would be very grateful if someone can tell me if this analysis is correct or not. Cheers, Jonathan
limma limma • 1.6k views
ADD COMMENT
0
Entering edit mode
@james-w-macdonald-5106
Last seen 2 minutes ago
United States
Hi Jonathan, On 5/19/2014 9:28 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote: > Dear list, > > I am analysing some microarrays with the limma package, and so far have > discovered no significant DEGs. I'm unsure if this is because there > really are no DEGs or I've misunderstood the limma package. I'm hoping > someone with more experience can tell me if my analysis is correct, or, > if not, where I've gone wrong. > > I have arrays collected at three time points (t0, t14 and t56) from the > same patients, so I have a data frame that resembles: > > Patient Time > 1 t0 > 1 t14 > 1 t56 > 2 t0 > 2 t14 > 2 t56 > etc. > > and I'm interested in comparing t14 to t0, t56 to t0 and t56 to t14, > whilst accounting for fact that array are from the same patient. My > analysis has been: > > design <- model.matrix(~ 0 + Time + Patient) > colnames(design) <- c('t0', 't14', 't56', 'p1', 'p2', 'p3', 'p4', 'p5', 'p6') > array.weights <- arrayWeights(x.filtered, design) > fitw <- lmFit(x.filtered, design, weights = array.weights) > contrast.matrix <- makeContrasts(t14-t0, t56-t14, t56-t0, levels = design) > fit2 <- contrasts.fit(fitw, contrast.matrix) > fit2 <- eBayes(fit2) > > I would be very grateful if someone can tell me if this analysis is > correct or not. Looks OK to me. When you say 'no significant DEGs', what exactly do you mean? You can certainly use a relatively large FDR, if you are willing to accept failures when you validate. Best, Jim > > Cheers, > Jonathan > > _______________________________________________ > Bioconductor mailing list > Bioconductor at r-project.org > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioconductor > Search the archives: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.science.biology.informatics.conductor -- James W. MacDonald, M.S. Biostatistician University of Washington Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences 4225 Roosevelt Way NE, # 100 Seattle WA 98105-6099
ADD COMMENT
0
Entering edit mode
Hi Jim, On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 10:17:34AM -0400, James W. MacDonald wrote: > Hi Jonathan, > > On 5/19/2014 9:28 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote: > >Dear list, > > > >I am analysing some microarrays with the limma package, and so far have > >discovered no significant DEGs. I'm unsure if this is because there > >really are no DEGs or I've misunderstood the limma package. I'm hoping > >someone with more experience can tell me if my analysis is correct, or, > >if not, where I've gone wrong. > > > >I have arrays collected at three time points (t0, t14 and t56) from the > >same patients, so I have a data frame that resembles: > > > >Patient Time > >1 t0 > >1 t14 > >1 t56 > >2 t0 > >2 t14 > >2 t56 > >etc. > > > >and I'm interested in comparing t14 to t0, t56 to t0 and t56 to t14, > >whilst accounting for fact that array are from the same patient. My > >analysis has been: > > > >design <- model.matrix(~ 0 + Time + Patient) > >colnames(design) <- c('t0', 't14', 't56', 'p1', 'p2', 'p3', 'p4', 'p5', 'p6') > >array.weights <- arrayWeights(x.filtered, design) > >fitw <- lmFit(x.filtered, design, weights = array.weights) > >contrast.matrix <- makeContrasts(t14-t0, t56-t14, t56-t0, levels = design) > >fit2 <- contrasts.fit(fitw, contrast.matrix) > >fit2 <- eBayes(fit2) > > > >I would be very grateful if someone can tell me if this analysis is > >correct or not. > > Looks OK to me. When you say 'no significant DEGs', what exactly do > you mean? You can certainly use a relatively large FDR, if you are > willing to accept failures when you validate. > > Best, > Jim Thanks for your reply. By no significant DEGs I mean that all FDR values are around 0.9. I'm aware that this is a perfectly legitimate result if the arrays really don't provide evidence for differential expression. Jonathan > > > > >Cheers, > >Jonathan > >_______________________________________________ > >Bioconductor mailing list > >Bioconductor at r-project.org > >https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioconductor > >Search the archives: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.science.biology.informatics.conductor > > -- > James W. MacDonald, M.S. > Biostatistician > University of Washington > Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences > 4225 Roosevelt Way NE, # 100 > Seattle WA 98105-6099 >
ADD REPLY

Login before adding your answer.

Traffic: 655 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