Hi,
I tried to conduct threshold-based Wald tests by using the lfcThreshold and altHypothesis arguments to the DESeq2::results function. However, I noticed in the DESeq2 (2014 Genome Biology) paper, it stated in page 6 "DESeq2 offers tests for composite null hypotheses of the form |ßir| <= theta, where ßir is the shrunken LFC from the estimation procedure described above. (See Methods for details.)". So it appears one should first get the shrunken LFC values before doing the Wald test, but after version 1.16 the shrunken LFC values can only be obtained by using a separate function lfcShrink(), which can only be run after running the results() function. So it seems there is no way to do threshold-based Wald tests on the shrunken LFC values in recent versions of DESeq2. Is my understanding correct?
I did some test runs:
res_default <- DESeq2::results(object = dds);
res_composite_null <- DESeq2::results(object = dds, lfcThreshold = 0.5, altHypothesis = "greaterAbs");
res_default_lfcShrink <- DESeq2::lfcShrink(dds = dds, coef = 2, type = 'normal', res = res_default);
res_composite_null_lfcShrink <- DESeq2::lfcShrink(dds = dds, coef = 2, type = 'normal', res = res_composite_null);
It looks like the pvalues in 'res_composite_null_lfcShrink' is exactly the same as the pvalues in 'res_composite_null', so the lfcShrink() function only changes the log2FoldChange and lfcSE columns. Is there a way to re-run the results() function on the output of lfcShrink()?
Thanks!
Lei
Hi Michael,
Thanks a lot for the quick answer. It is re-assuring to know that the test is perfectly valid on the non-shrunken LFC. Do you have a rough idea on what would be a good cutoff value on the non-shrunken LFC, if I intend to perform the test |beta_ir| > log2(1.5) where beta_ir is the shrunken LFC (i.e. is there a way to map the cutoff value of log2(1.5) on the shrunken LFC to the non-shrunken ones)?
Best,
Lei
I don't think there is a good cutoff for LFC for any and all datasets. You would use the same LFC cutoff if you were testing shrunken or unshrunken LFC, this is not related the choice of cutoff.
I would take a look at the MA plot perhaps, if there wasn't already a more biologically motivated LFC cutoff.