If a lab generates 100 aliquots of RNA from 100 subjects and runs the same aliquots four months apart at the same core facility, I would be unsurprised to see them cluster separately. There are batch effects you introduce even with that level of replication; taking two different experiments, run by two different labs, etc. and not renormalizing the data, and it would be very surprising if you didn't see that.
Start out a more basic point:
You haven't said anything about the experiments you're using as raw data. Are the experiments purportedly measuring the same thing? (e.g. lung adenocarcinomas from early stage tumors, mouse skin treated with UV radiation, whatever) This is the biggest issue. There may be very good biological reasons why the experiments cluster separately, even aside from technical batch effects. Combining other people's data without studying the individual data sets and knowing something about the biological context can be very misleading. I'm not assuming that is what you are doing, but you haven't said anything about this.
For practical suggestions, I would suggest you renormalize the combined data sets together from the CEL files and use a tool such as ComBat to adjust for the known between-experiments batch effects. If you don't have the CEL files, I suggest that at least you use ComBat.
I think, you should not use euclidean distance in this case. Pearson based distances would be a better choice.
I am not quite sure what do you mean?! Not using Euclidean distance for what?!
For the clustering. You are using Euclidian distance for the clustering, but there are other possible choices to measure the distance between two profiles. See wikipedia "euclidian distance" for more details.
Thanks both of you, I already forgot my post!! So you mean that if I use Pearson correlation for distance then I wouldn't see that effect?! I can check that. I will let you know whether this makes a different or not.
Can i take some cel files for disease1 from experiment1 and some cel files for the same disease1 from experiment2 and similarly ,,taking raw data and then normalizing together ,is it a good idea ?
Hi Saman
I am keen to combine multiple GEO datasets (all run on Affymetrix U133 plus 2.0) and came across your thread. I was wondering what approach you ended up using in order to combine your datasets? I would appreciate any help.
Thanks