DESeq2 lfcShrink: swapping reference gives different results for the same comparison
1
0
Entering edit mode
Daphnia • 0
@b83c1e8a
Last seen 20 months ago
Germany

Hi!

I noticed that my volcano plots resulting from lfcShrink() on contrast A_vs_B look different from the results of lfcShrink() on B_vs_A. I expected the absolute values of the l2FC to be approximately similar, but they are skewed towards the upregulated genes, i.e. the positive l2FC values tend to be higher in both comparisons. The unshrunken values behave as expected; the volcano plots are flipped along the y-axis. When I plotted the shrunken l2FCs of both contrasts against eachother, the vast majority was linearly distributed, but some (including some significant ones) deviated quite a bit from that. Thus, the ranking changes as well as the visulal representation. I tested this mostly using apeglm, but when I tried ashr, the absolute values didn't match up either. There are not too many DGEs in this data set, otherwise I might have missed it.

I hope you can help me clear this up, since intuitively, I don't see why the order of the contrast should have an impact on the absolute l2FC values and I'm not sure what it means for my experiment.

Thanks in advance! Maike

This is my code:

# A vs B
coldata$strain <- relevel(coldata$strain, 'B')
dds <- DESeqDataSetFromMatrix(countData = cts,
                              colData = coldata,
                              design = ~ donor + strain)
dds <- DESeq(dds)
# raw (non-shrunken) DEG results:
res_AB <- results(dds, name = "strain_A_vs_B")
# shrink:
map_AB <- lfcShrink(dds, coef = "strain_A_vs_B")

# B vs A
coldata$strain <- relevel(coldata$strain, 'A')
dds <- DESeqDataSetFromMatrix(countData = cts,
                              colData = coldata,
                              design = ~ donor + strain)
dds <- DESeq(dds)
# raw (non-shrunken) DEG results:
res_BA <- results(dds, name = "strain_B_vs_A")
# shrink:
map_BA <- lfcShrink(dds, coef = "strain_B_vs_A")

# l2fc plot:
# plot: compare L2FCs - all values:
df <- data.frame (row.names = rownames(as.data.frame(map_AB)))
df$l2fc_AB <- (as.data.frame(map_AB)$log2FoldChange)
df$l2fc_BA <- (as.data.frame(map_BA)$log2FoldChange)

Plot_01 <- ggplot(df, aes(x=l2fc_AB, y=l2fc_BA)) +
  geom_point()

Here are the volcano plots aand the scatter plot: This are the two resulting volcano plots: This is the l2fc scatter plot

DESeq2 apeglm • 1.2k views
ADD COMMENT
3
Entering edit mode
ATpoint ★ 4.6k
@atpoint-13662
Last seen 37 minutes ago
Germany

I asked the same some years back: apeglm -- influence of reference level on logFC and svalues

ADD COMMENT
0
Entering edit mode

Thank you a lot! I missed that post when I was trying to to find out what is happenenig. The ranking missmatch I observed was indeed due to low readcounts in one of the saples and prefiltering removed the affected genes.

ADD REPLY

Login before adding your answer.

Traffic: 816 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