edgeR: likelihood ratio test or quasi-likelihood F-test?
In edgeR, there are two tests available to choose from: likelihood ratio test (LRT) or quasi-likelihood F-test (QLF). I found the two tests generated very different results (at least when comparing an interaction term with the intercept) when a input categorial factor takes more than two values. The heatmaps are very different too: the QLF result genes can be clustered into a couple of obvious patterns while the LRT result genes look more dissimilar to each other.
Which test do you prefer and why the above heatmap observation?
Thanks!
0 answers
No answers yet.
Log in to answer this question.
More posts like this
-
DESeq2 LRT test with multifactorial design
written by lessismore
-
DESeq2 LRT divergent DEGs ?
written by klervi-lugue •
-
Statistic Method Question: How to display correlation from pheatmap with other data
written by Qamarul •
-
How to interpret DEGs of DESeq2 in comparing more than two groups?
written by takoyaki
-
Differential Gene Expression Analysis with low biological replicates
written by sp29 •
-
RNA-seq differential analysis: quasi-likelihood F-test versus likelihood ratio test
written by Adeler001 •
-
Interaction terms and main effects in DESeq2
written by Aspire
-
help needed about PLINK joint test (--tests)
written by charlie.gaoc •
-
Using LRT and Wald test to filter differentially expressed loci in RNA-seq dataset
written by a.rex
-
The best test for the two conditional problem.
written by unique379
If you ask this question on Bioconductor support, you will probably get better answers. Anyway, the edgeR User Guide states:
This seems to be the general consensus, e.g., see here.
Great! Thanks a lot for the reply. test="F" has already been phased out, 'cause it's not seen in the user's guide any more.
The simple answer is: only use LRT when there is no replicates, otherwise use QLF.
But I will have to add, although not sure if it is true: if you have done ERCC normalization, even with replicates, LRT might be more powerful.
The reason I am saying this is that I have ERCC normalized samples, fed into RSEM, and then to edgeR. The p-values obtained through LRT are in general much smaller (e.g. e-300) than the QLF p-values (e.g. e-20), and the top genes found through LRT seem to make more sense (i.e. identified and validated previously with biological experiments). It might be that the ERCC normalization minimized between library variations of gene expression levels.