Question: Limma Voom duplicateCorrelation Design
gravatar for bruce.moran
8 weeks ago by
bruce.moran20 wrote:


want to get this straight as my first time using limma-voom and duplicateCorrelation.

My metadata has multiple Tissue (either tumour or normal) across two Diets. Each Individual had multiple biopsies, from either normal, tumour or multiple of each.

    Individual Tissue Diet
S1           1 Normal   NC
S2           1 Tumour   NC
S3           1 Tumour   NC
S4           1 Tumour   NC
S5           2 Normal   NC
S6           3 Normal   NC
S7           4 Tumour   NC
S8           4 Tumour   NC
S9           5 Tumour   NC
S10          5 Tumour   NC
S11          5 Tumour   NC
S12          5 Normal   NC
S13          6 Tumour   NC
S14          6 Tumour   NC
S15          6 Tumour   NC
S16          6 Tumour   NC
S17          7 Tumour   NC
S18          7 Tumour   NC
S19          7 Tumour   NC
S20          7 Normal   NC
S21          8 Normal  HFD
S22         10 Normal  HFD
S23         11 Tumour  HFD
S24         11 Tumour  HFD
S25         11 Tumour  HFD
S26         12 Tumour  HFD
S27         12 Tumour  HFD
S28         12 Tumour  HFD
S29         12 Tumour  HFD
S30         13 Normal  HFD
S31         21 Tumour  HFD
S32         22 Tumour  HFD
S33         22 Tumour  HFD
S34         22 Tumour  HFD
S35         22 Normal  HFD

I believe I can use duplicateCorrelation setting block=Individual to account for correlated gene expression from individuals. I make a combined DietTissue as we believe gene expression in Tissue will be affected by Diet.

DietTissue <- factor(paste(conds$Diet, conds$Tissue, sep="."))
DTdesign <- model.matrix(~0+DietTissue, conds)
colnames(DTdesign)[seq_len(nlevels(DietTissue))] <- levels(DietTissue)
DTkeep <- filterByExpr(dge, design)
DTdge <- dge[keep, keep.lib.sizes=FALSE]
DTdge <- calcNormFactors(DTdge)

DTdcv <- voom(DTdge, design, plot=FALSE)

DTcor <- duplicateCorrelation(DTdcv, 
DTdcdcv <- voom(DTdge, 
DTdcfit <- lmFit(DTdcdcv, 
DTdcmc <- makeContrasts(HFD.Tumour_Normal = HFD.Tumour - HFD.Normal,
                        NC.Tumour_Normal = NC.Tumour - NC.Normal,
DTdcfitmc <-, DTdcmc)
DTdcfitmc <- eBayes(DTdcfitmc)


Any comments with respect to this analysis would be greatly appreciated.


ADD COMMENTlink modified 7 weeks ago by Aaron Lun22k • written 8 weeks ago by bruce.moran20
Answer: Limma Voom duplicateCorrelation Design
gravatar for Aaron Lun
7 weeks ago by
Aaron Lun22k
Cambridge, United Kingdom
Aaron Lun22k wrote:

Looks fine to me. I'd do a second duplicateCorrelation after the second voom. I might also consider setting robust=TRUE in eBayes, any benefit depends on whether you have genes with outlier variances.

ADD COMMENTlink modified 7 weeks ago • written 7 weeks ago by Aaron Lun22k

Hi Aaron,

thanks for the reply, late response as I got no notification mail.

I find very small change after second round of duplicateCorrelation:

DTcor <- duplicateCorrelation(DTdcv, block=conds$Individual)
[1] 0.4353269

DTdcv2 <- voom(DTdge, DTdesign, correlation=DTcor$consensus.correlation, block=conds$Individual)
DTcor <- duplicateCorrelation(DTdcv2, block=conds$Individual)
[1] 0.4356611

I would like to perform MDS post duplicateCorrelation. Is there a way to apply a scaling factor accounting for the correlation to counts/CPM on a per-sample/individual level that you know of?

Thanks for the tip on robust=TRUE.



ADD REPLYlink modified 6 weeks ago • written 6 weeks ago by bruce.moran20

In general, no. The reason we have to use duplicateCorrelation in the first place is because we don't have enough information in the experimental design to estimate the effect of the blocking factor, which means we can't compute corrected expression values that are free of said effect. At least, not without also removing confounded effects of interest, which is the diet in your case. I don't think there's an obvious visual analogy in the MDS plot for the effect of duplicateCorrelation. The closest I can think of is somehow "squeezing" all samples together in a manner that preserves the differences within each level of the blocking factor.

Long story short, don't worry about it and just make your MDS plot. If the diet effect is strong, it should show up fine regardless of the fact that it's confounded with the individual effect.

ADD REPLYlink written 6 weeks ago by Aaron Lun22k

OK, good to know, and yes, with strong effect (tumour vs. normal) we find an effect as expected, but the diet effect is minimal. Not sure I won't worry about it though=D Thanks for your advice, and your continued support of these kinds of questions, it is incredibly helpful.

ADD REPLYlink written 6 weeks ago by bruce.moran20
Please log in to add an answer.


Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.
Powered by Biostar version 16.09
Traffic: 252 users visited in the last hour