Hello!
I'm needing some help from the more experienced ones! n_n'
I'm doing a transcriptome expression comparison using DESeq2 and I would like to be sure I'm using the right parameters. This doubt came after seeing that a gene increased the expression between different sampling points but was not included in the DESeq2 output. Here are the expression values for this gene in EST values (7developmental stages, 3 replicates each):
Gene/DevStage S1_R1 S1_R2 S1_R3 S2_R1 S2_R2 S2_R3 S3_R1 S3_R2 S3_R3 S4_R1 S4_R2 S4_R3 S5_R1 S5_R2 S5_R3 S6_R1 S6_R2 S6_R3 S7_R1 S7_R2 S7_R3
BetaCatenin1 6875 11251 6937 6229 10730 6944 16075 18568 19081 20628 19490 20675 18251 19120 20971 18500 21838 12948 15971 23489 15423
First, can I consider this gene as being differentially expressed? If yes, how can I change my script to include similar cases in my output?
Thank you!!! :)
Here is the script I'm using (any other suggestions to fix/improve it are welcome!!! :D ):
#Step1
table_MyOrganism<- read.table("ExpValues_MyOrganism.tsv", header=TRUE, sep ="\t", row.names = 1)
rd_matrix_MyOrganism <- round(table_MyOrganism)
#Step2
dds_MyOrganism <- DESeqDataSetFromMatrix(countData = rd_matrix_MyOrganism, colData = design_MyOrganism, design = ~ condition)
dds_normal_MyOrganism <- DESeq(dds_MyOrganism)
res_MyOrganism <- results(dds_normal_MyOrganism)
mcols(res_MyOrganism, use.names = TRUE)
res_MyOrganism
summary(res_MyOrganism)
#Step3
rlog_MyOrganism <- rlog(dds_normal_MyOrganism, bS5nd = FALSE)
pca_MyOrganism <- plotPCA(rlog_MyOrganism, returnData = TRUE)
pca_MyOrganism_b <- plotPCA(rlog_MyOrganism)
#Step4
dist_MyOrganism <- dist(t(assay(rlog_MyOrganism)))
dist_matrix_MyOrganism <- as.matrix(dist_HM_MyOrganism)
pheatmap(dist_matrix_MyOrganism);pca_MyOrganism_b
#Step5
result_DGE_S1_S2 <- results(dds_normal_MyOrganism, contrast = c("condition", "S1", "S2"), alpha = 0.05, lfcThreshold = 1)
result_DGE_S1_S2
Then I repeat this step (5) comparing all the stages in a pair-wise manner.
#Step6
up_reg01 <- as.data.frame(result_DGE_S1_S2)
up_reg01 <- up_reg01 %>% filter(padj <0.5 & log2FoldChange > 1)
write.csv(up_reg01, "/Users/vitoriatsantos/Documents/BioInfo/Poly_zor_genome/DESeq2/output_DESeq/MyOrganism_UP_S1_S2.csv", row.names = TRUE)
down_reg01 <- as.data.frame(result_DGE_S1_S2)
down_reg01 <- down_reg01 %>% filter(padj <0.5 & log2FoldChange < -1)
write.csv(down_reg01, "/Users/vitoriatsantos/Documents/BioInfo/Poly_zor_genome/DESeq2/output_DESeq/MyOrganism_DOWN_S1_S2.csv", row.names = TRUE)
I also repeat this step (6) for all the comparisons obtained in the previous step.
1 answer
The point of a statistical study is not to tweak the method until it includes all the points you think should be there.
That is why we use a statistical method to have provide us with a more objective assessment of the variability in the data.
A statistical method evaluate the intra-replicate (within replicates) variability against the inter-sample (across condition) variability.
The p-value reflects the chance of observing an effect size (or larger) by chance (when in reality there is no change).
When your intra-replicate variability is larger, or where the intra-sample variability is small, then the chance of observing the effect size by chance alone is much larger.
So evaluate your data not in the sense of how to make it do what you want it to do, but, instead think about why that particular row does not pass "judgment".
Log in to answer this question.