I have a set of four samples coming from an RNASeq experiment. Normally, I would perform a quantile normalization but in this case the differential condition displace too much the expression distribution compared with the control and I do not want to lose information.
I was wondering if it would be possible to normalize by the values of rRNA and how this should be done.
Thank you in advance for your consideration,
S.
•
written
by
samuelmiver
As leipinji said, you shoudln't use rRNA as normalizers because library construction usually includes a step that either select mRNA or deplete rRNA. The efficiency of this step can vary, therefore rRNA levels can be very different between libraries (especially if you used ribodepletion).
However, in the case of ribodepleted datasets, you could try to normalize on snoRNAs. With DEseq2, its pretty simple:
cds = newCountDataSet(CountTable, Design$condition )
estimateSizeFactors(cds[which(cds$feature=="snoRNA"])
sizeFactors( cds )
head(counts( cds, normalized=TRUE))
Hope that helps!
Carlo
•
written
by
Carlo Yague
Do you have any experience with this in polyA enriched datasets? I'm curious how well it might work there given that polyA tagging of snoRNAs tends to signal "degrade me".
•
written
by
Devon Ryan
You are right, I wouldn't recommend this method for poly-A enriched datasets. I know guys who use it, but only with ribodepleted datasets. I updated my answer accordingly to avoid confusion.
I think you can not use rRNA for normalization. Firstly, for RNASeq library construction we first purify mRNA from total RNA and then sequencing those mRNA fragments. And the purification step will remove most rRNA. Secondly, if you used total RNA for library construction, the rate of mRNA is only 2%, you may get many useless information. I think using RPKM value is better.
•
written
by
Pinji Lei •
Please don't use RPKMs for anything other than things like plotting.
•
written
by
Devon Ryan
But many people use FPKM for RNASeq gene expression level quantification. Could you please explain why shouldn't we use FPKM value for normalization?
•
written
by
Pinji Lei •
Just because many people do it doesn't mean that their results are worthwhile. The short list of problems with FPKM are (1) non-robust normalization even within typical conditions and (2) complete loss of precision information. Some tools (e.g. Kallisto) will give confidence intervals on FPKM estimates, which are then useful, but this is more the exception than the rule (particularly since tools intended to deal with this have only existed for a few weeks).
•
written
by
Devon Ryan
Log in to answer this question.
A you sure you didn't sequence primarily mRNA? You normally have to explicitly ask for total RNAseq. Were there spike-ins?
There are plenty of alternatives to quantile normalization. Are any of those applicable?
You haven't specified what workflow you're attempting to use? - DESeq2? Kallisto / Sleuth? Tuxedo?
It is a hard-coding pipeline used in the lab where I am a new student. The data was analysed by a previous technician who is not here any more. His colleagues need to reproduce the results and I do not know how to manage this mess... sorry.
Well what sorts of programs are invoked in the pipeline? - Tophat? cufflinks? htseq_count?