16 days ago • updated 4 days ago
mat149
▴
70
3
votes
4
replies
272
views
0
votes
1
reply
155
views
updated 7 weeks ago by
James W. MacDonald
65k
•
written 7 weeks ago by
Karen
•
0
2
votes
2
replies
256
views
7 weeks ago
ramiro.barrantes
▴
10
1
vote
5
replies
457
views
10 weeks ago • updated 8 weeks ago
Gerhard Thallinger
▴
180
0
votes
0
replies
174
views
2
votes
6
replies
796
views
updated 7 months ago by
Hervé Pagès
16k
•
written 7 months ago by
nromerov
•
0
1
vote
3
replies
552
views
updated 8 months ago by
James W. MacDonald
65k
•
written 8 months ago by
rogerb
•
0
0
votes
2
replies
721
views
0
votes
5
replies
2.9k
views
8.2 years ago • updated 12 days ago
Henrik Bengtsson
★
2.4k
Recent ...
Replies
Comment: Numerical differences in DESeq2 output depending on different design matrix cons
by
JKim
•
0
The 1st model has an interaction term, but the 2nd model doesn't have the interaction term. That makes the difference.
Comment: Ensembl plants at annotationHub?
by
Daniele
•
0
Hi,
I'm using Ensembl Plants release 59 with the IWGSC RefSeq v1.1 gene annotation.
Thanks a lot for replying so quickly!
Comment: Numerical differences in DESeq2 output depending on different design matrix cons
by
swbarnes2
★
1.4k
If you restrict yourself to, say, genes with a baseMean > 50, are the numerical differences between the two designs significant?
Comment: DESeq2- Mysterious interaction suppresses DEGs
by
shaunpeterson
•
0
The images I tried to attach didn't attach. Here is the PCA (MDS) of all the samples, with the Cortex outlier highlighed.
Hong Kong, just now
Hong Kong, just now
Poland, 30 minutes ago
Greece, 41 minutes ago
WEHI, Melbourne, Australia, 1 hour ago
Hong Kong, just now
Hong Kong, just now
Poland, 30 minutes ago
Greece, 41 minutes ago
WEHI, Melbourne, Australia, 1 hour ago
Traffic: 447 users visited in the last hour
Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.
Powered by the
version 2.3.6
version 2.3.6