I have a question about the proper design for DEseq2, when there is an siControl as well as siRNA for a target gene, then there is a treated and a vehicle for both conditions.
I setup the factors and design like so:
> dds$condition <- factor(dds$condition, levels =c("siControl","siTarget"))
> dds$condition <- relevel(dds$condition, ref= "siControl")
> dds$treatment <- factor(dds$treatment, levels = c("vehicle","treated"))
> dds$treatment <- relevel(dds$treatment, ref ="vehicleā€¯)
> design(dds) <- ~ condition + treatment + condition:treatment
At first it appeared to be giving me what I thought I wanted, differences in the siTarget population upon treatment, controlling for the siControl and Vehicle condition. But then I realized that the target gene is not on the list of DE genes, even though there is a clear knockdown. I think this is because the target gene is also down in the Vehicle condition.
I can compare just siTarget vs siControl, but then this list is dominated by genes that are different in the Vehicle condition. I can also compare treated vs. vehicle, but then there is a combination of siControl and siTarget genes in the list.
Ideally what I would like to do is normalize the treated condition to the untreated condition, and then look for differences between siControl and siTarget.
Is this possible with DESeq? Is there something wrong with this approach? Is there a better way to do this analysis?
Any help or advice would be very much appreciated.
Thanks for the quick reply and the comment. I didn't realize that the order of the factors specified the reference.
What I would like to find is genes that are differentially expressed in the siTarget treated vs. the siControl treated. I know that there will be a lot of differentially expressed genes between the vehicle and treated samples, in both the siControl and the siTarget. I'm interested in how knockdown of the target gene influences the expression of these genes. However, I realized that the knockdown might effect expression of these genes even in the vehicle condition. So by controlling for the differences between the siControl and the siTarget vehicle condition, I am losing many of the differentially expressed genes influenced by the the target gene. But if I don't control for this, then the list is dominated by genes that are different in the vehicle condition and its harder to see those that are differentially expressed in the treated condition.
Essentially I would like the vehicle condition to be the baseline for both the siControl and the siTarget, and then find differentially expressed genes between the treated condition. That's why I was thinking that if the treated samples could be normalized to the vehicle samples, then the differences between the siControl and the siTarget would become more apparent.
I did look at plotCounts and the target gene is depleted in both the vehicle and the treated conditions, which is why it's not significantly different. The problem is, I have the same effect for the genes under the influence of my target gene. I couldn't figure out how to put an image on here, but here are the counts:
You can see from this that upon treatment the gene levels go up, in both the siControl and the siTarget. The gene levels are reduced in the siTarget, in both the vehicle and the treated. What I am mainly interested in quantifying is how much gene expression is changed in the siTarget treated vs the siControl treated.
I'm still lost. Can you express your quantity of interest as a ratio of these terms: {siC-V, siC-T, siT-V, siT-T} ?
I think I'm trying to do this:
{ siC-T/siC-V : siT-T/siT-V }
That's the design you are using. The null is that this equals 1.
That's what I was afraid of. Ok, thanks Michael
Sorry, one more quick question. If I wanted to look at { siC-T/siC-V : siT-T/siC-V } , and ignore the differences in the siT-V sample, what would be the design for that?
(siC-T / siC-V) / (siT-T / siC-V) = siC-T / siT-T
This comes up every now and then, but there isn't really any meaning to comparing A and B relative to C. A/C / B/C is just A/B.
Ah yes, of course. Ok, thanks