Question: LIMMA, SAM & clustering
0
gravatar for daniela.marconi@libero.it
13.9 years ago by
Hi, I have analyzed a data set with 2 different classes UM and M(with subcklasses M1 and M2) . I have fitted the linear model with limma for the coefficients UM, M1 and M2 and I have compared UM vs (M1+M2).I found a significant change (adjuste p-value<0.0001 and B>2) for 236 genes I did the analysis also with SAM (with the function samrocNboot in the package SAGx)comparing UM vs M.I found a significant change(adjusted p-value <0.001) for 285 genes. I had also 29 genes in common between the two anlalysis. For visualization pouposes for both results I used, on normalized data matrix, a hierarchical clustering (with pearson correlation as distance and average as method). But with the SAM's genes I obtained a good clustering, with a good separation between the two classes. For LIMMA's genes I couldn't succed to obtain a good separation between the two classes. Have you any idea about? May be is SAM closer to a mesure of correlation, withou fitting any linear model, than LIMMA? Thanks for any suggestion Daniela
ADD COMMENTlink modified 13.9 years ago by James W. MacDonald52k • written 13.9 years ago by daniela.marconi@libero.it100
Answer: LIMMA, SAM & clustering
0
gravatar for James W. MacDonald
13.9 years ago by
United States
James W. MacDonald52k wrote:
daniela marconi wrote: > Hi, I have analyzed a data set with 2 different classes UM and M(with > subcklasses M1 and M2) . I have fitted the linear model with limma > for the coefficients UM, M1 and M2 and I have compared UM vs > (M1+M2).I found a significant change (adjuste p-value<0.0001 and B>2) When you say you compared UM vs (M1+M2), is that what you used in your call to makeContrasts() (e.g., makeContrasts(UM - (M1 + M2))? If so, you are comparing UM to the *sum* of M1 and M2 instead of the *mean* of M1 and M2, which would probably explain the differences. Best, Jim > for 236 genes I did the analysis also with SAM (with the function > samrocNboot in the package SAGx)comparing UM vs M.I found a > significant change(adjusted p-value <0.001) for 285 genes. > > I had also 29 genes in common between the two anlalysis. > > For visualization pouposes for both results I used, on normalized > data matrix, a hierarchical clustering (with pearson correlation as > distance and average as method). But with the SAM's genes I obtained > a good clustering, with a good separation between the two classes. > For LIMMA's genes I couldn't succed to obtain a good separation > between the two classes. Have you any idea about? May be is SAM > closer to a mesure of correlation, withou fitting any linear model, > than LIMMA? Thanks for any suggestion Daniela > > _______________________________________________ Bioconductor mailing > list Bioconductor at stat.math.ethz.ch > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioconductor -- James W. MacDonald Affymetrix and cDNA Microarray Core University of Michigan Cancer Center 1500 E. Medical Center Drive 7410 CCGC Ann Arbor MI 48109 734-647-5623
ADD COMMENTlink written 13.9 years ago by James W. MacDonald52k
Please log in to add an answer.

Help
Access

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.
Powered by Biostar version 16.09
Traffic: 419 users visited in the last hour