2x2 factorial loop without common reference (pool)
2
0
Entering edit mode
@francois-fauteux-1696
Last seen 9.6 years ago
Hi; We are doing an experiment with agilent 44K (3 biological reps, complete dye-swap): a - control b - treatment 1 c - treatment 2 d - treatment 1 + treatment 2 and I would like to output evidence of the interaction between two treatments and effect on gene expression. 24 chips: SlideNumber Cy3 Cy5 1 a1 b1 2 a2 b2 3 a3 b3 4 b1 a1 5 b2 a2 6 b3 a3 7 a1 c1 8 a2 c2 9 a3 c3 10 c1 a1 11 c2 a2 12 c3 a3 13 b1 d1 14 b2 d2 15 b3 d3 16 d1 b1 17 d2 b2 18 d3 b3 19 c1 d1 20 c2 d2 21 c3 d3 22 d1 c1 23 d2 c2 24 d3 c3 I've done several tests with limma to isolate significant results in the following: 1- a vs b; 2- a vs c; 3- b bs d; 4- c vs d; with this "targets.txt": SlideNumber Cy3 Cy5 1 a b 2 a b 3 a b 4 b a 5 b a 6 b a 7 a c 8 a c 9 a c 10 c a 11 c a 12 c a 13 b d 14 b d 15 b d 16 d b 17 d b 18 d b 19 c d 20 c d 21 c d 22 d c 23 d c 24 d c First option: > f <- paste(targets$Cy3, targets$Cy5, sep = ".") > f <- factor(f, levels = c("a.b", "b.a", "a.c", "c.a", "b.d", "d.a", "c.d", "d.a")) > design1 <- model.matrix(~0 + f) > design a.b b.a a.c c.a b.d d.b c.d d.c 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 This gives significant results for each one of the "levels" but does not take into account the dye-swap (i.e "a.b" and "b.a" are considered independent). Other tested option is: > design2 <- modelMatrix(targets,ref="a") > design p s sp ab1 0 1 0 ab2 0 1 0 ab3 0 1 0 ba1 0 -1 0 ba2 0 -1 0 ba3 0 -1 0 ac1 1 0 0 ac2 1 0 0 ac3 1 0 0 ca1 -1 0 0 ca2 -1 0 0 ca3 -1 0 0 bd1 0 -1 1 bd2 0 -1 1 bd3 0 -1 1 db1 0 1 -1 db2 0 1 -1 db3 0 1 -1 cd1 -1 0 1 cd2 -1 0 1 cd3 -1 0 1 dc1 1 0 -1 dc2 1 0 -1 dc3 1 0 -1 This gives results for "b" effect, "c" effect, and "d" effect. However, I could'nt get results for the 4 comparisons of interest (even though the matrix is coherent). Questions: 1 - What would be the best option (design and operations) to get to contrasts of interest considering that the experiment has a 4 treatments in a factorial design without common reference (a vs b, a vs c, b vs d, c vs d) and taking into account the dye-effect; 2- Is this method (4 contrasts) the best one considering that treatment "d" is a combination of treatments "b" and "c" (factorial type design). How could one directly get to identify genes differentially expressed due to the interaction between treatment "b" and treatment "c" (i.e effect of "d" over "b" and "c"). In Limma Users Guide and elsewhere on this forum, I could not find a clear description of how this type of analysis should be performed, even though it is a simple design (i.e 2X2 factorial without a common reference - two color arrays - complete dye swap). Thanks for your time, best regards. Fran?ois Fauteux ?tudiant ? la ma?trise en biologie v?g?tale Centre de recherche en horticulture Universit? Laval francois.fauteux at gmail.com
limma limma • 1.1k views
ADD COMMENT
0
Entering edit mode
Naomi Altman ★ 6.0k
@naomi-altman-380
Last seen 3.0 years ago
United States
I would use single channel analysis for this. The only problem is that Limma allows only 1 level of random effects. Hence, you will need to average the dye- swaps. Anyways with single channel analysis, you have a balanced incomplete block design with factorial treatments, and the analysis is much simplified. --Naomi At 01:41 PM 4/23/2006, francois fauteux wrote: >Hi; > >We are doing an experiment with agilent 44K (3 biological reps, >complete dye-swap): > >a - control >b - treatment 1 >c - treatment 2 >d - treatment 1 + treatment 2 > >and I would like to output evidence of the interaction between two >treatments and effect on gene expression. > >24 chips: > >SlideNumber Cy3 Cy5 >1 a1 b1 >2 a2 b2 >3 a3 b3 >4 b1 a1 >5 b2 a2 >6 b3 a3 >7 a1 c1 >8 a2 c2 >9 a3 c3 >10 c1 a1 >11 c2 a2 >12 c3 a3 >13 b1 d1 >14 b2 d2 >15 b3 d3 >16 d1 b1 >17 d2 b2 >18 d3 b3 >19 c1 d1 >20 c2 d2 >21 c3 d3 >22 d1 c1 >23 d2 c2 >24 d3 c3 > >I've done several tests with limma to isolate significant results in >the following: >1- a vs b; >2- a vs c; >3- b bs d; >4- c vs d; > >with this "targets.txt": > >SlideNumber Cy3 Cy5 >1 a b >2 a b >3 a b >4 b a >5 b a >6 b a >7 a c >8 a c >9 a c >10 c a >11 c a >12 c a >13 b d >14 b d >15 b d >16 d b >17 d b >18 d b >19 c d >20 c d >21 c d >22 d c >23 d c >24 d c > >First option: > > > f <- paste(targets$Cy3, targets$Cy5, sep = ".") > > f <- factor(f, levels = c("a.b", "b.a", > "a.c", "c.a", "b.d", "d.a", "c.d", "d.a")) > > design1 <- model.matrix(~0 + f) > > > design > a.b b.a a.c c.a b.d d.b c.d d.c >1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 >5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 >6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 >7 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 >8 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 >9 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 >10 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 >11 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 >12 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 >13 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 >14 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 >15 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 >16 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 >17 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 >18 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 >19 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 >20 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 >21 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 >22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 >23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 >24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 > >This gives significant results for each one of the "levels" but does >not take into account the dye-swap (i.e "a.b" and "b.a" are considered >independent). > >Other tested option is: > > design2 <- modelMatrix(targets,ref="a") > > > design > p s sp >ab1 0 1 0 >ab2 0 1 0 >ab3 0 1 0 >ba1 0 -1 0 >ba2 0 -1 0 >ba3 0 -1 0 >ac1 1 0 0 >ac2 1 0 0 >ac3 1 0 0 >ca1 -1 0 0 >ca2 -1 0 0 >ca3 -1 0 0 >bd1 0 -1 1 >bd2 0 -1 1 >bd3 0 -1 1 >db1 0 1 -1 >db2 0 1 -1 >db3 0 1 -1 >cd1 -1 0 1 >cd2 -1 0 1 >cd3 -1 0 1 >dc1 1 0 -1 >dc2 1 0 -1 >dc3 1 0 -1 > >This gives results for "b" effect, "c" effect, and "d" effect. >However, I could'nt get results for the 4 comparisons of interest >(even though the matrix is coherent). > >Questions: > >1 - What would be the best option (design and operations) to get to >contrasts of interest considering that the experiment has a 4 >treatments in a factorial design without common reference (a vs b, a >vs c, b vs d, c vs d) and taking into account the dye-effect; > >2- Is this method (4 contrasts) the best one considering that >treatment "d" is a combination of treatments "b" and "c" (factorial >type design). How could one directly get to identify genes >differentially expressed due to the interaction between treatment "b" >and treatment "c" (i.e effect of "d" over "b" and "c"). > >In Limma Users Guide and elsewhere on this forum, I could not find a >clear description of how this type of analysis should be performed, >even though it is a simple design (i.e 2X2 factorial without a common >reference - two color arrays - complete dye swap). > >Thanks for your time, best regards. > >Fran?ois Fauteux >?tudiant ? la ma?trise en biologie v?g?tale >Centre de recherche en horticulture >Universit? Laval >francois.fauteux at gmail.com > >_______________________________________________ >Bioconductor mailing list >Bioconductor at stat.math.ethz.ch >https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioconductor >Search the archives: >http://news.gmane.org/gmane.science.biology.informatics.conductor Naomi S. Altman 814-865-3791 (voice) Associate Professor Dept. of Statistics 814-863-7114 (fax) Penn State University 814-865-1348 (Statistics) University Park, PA 16802-2111
ADD COMMENT
0
Entering edit mode
Hi again; Trying to work this out in the "two channels" way (I don't get clearly what are the benefits of treating a two-color array as if it was two one-color arrays)... If really necessary and clearly justified, I might whant to switch to this type of analysis, but otherwise would like to stay in what's more 'standard'. Other try, but new design get error messages when lmfit, coefficients not estimable 1 out of 2: > fit4 <- lmFit(MAq, weights=w, design4) Coefficients not estimable: b.a c.a d.c > design4 a.b b.a a.c c.a b.d d.b c.d d.c [1,] 1 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 [2,] 1 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 [3,] 1 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 [4,] -1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 [5,] -1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 [6,] -1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 [7,] 0 0 1 -1 0 0 0 0 [8,] 0 0 1 -1 0 0 0 0 [9,] 0 0 1 -1 0 0 0 0 [10,] 0 0 -1 1 0 0 0 0 [11,] 0 0 -1 1 0 0 0 0 [12,] 0 0 -1 1 0 0 0 0 [13,] 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0 0 [14,] 0 0 0 0 1 -1 0 0 [15,] 0 0 0 0 1 -1 0 0 [16,] 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 [17,] 0 0 0 0 -1 1 0 0 [18,] 0 0 0 0 -1 1 0 0 [19,] 0 0 0 0 -1 0 1 -1 [20,] 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 -1 [21,] 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 -1 [22,] 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 1 [23,] 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 1 [24,] 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 1 Why are Coefficients not estimable??? Thought this design would take into account the dye effects... Second design try: design3 <- modelMatrix(targets,ref="a") > contrast.matrix <- makeContrasts(b,c,d-b,d-c, + levels=design3) > contrast.matrix b c d - b d - c c 0 1 0 -1 b 1 0 -1 0 d 0 0 1 1 This seems correct a priori. If you could confirm that it is OK, and that this is indeed the best way of working things out... Many thanks, regards. Fran?ois On 4/23/06, Naomi Altman <naomi at="" stat.psu.edu=""> wrote: > I would use single channel analysis for > this. The only problem is that Limma allows only > 1 level of random effects. Hence, you will need to average the dye- swaps. > > Anyways with single channel analysis, you have a > balanced incomplete block design with factorial > treatments, and the analysis is much simplified. > > --Naomi > > At 01:41 PM 4/23/2006, francois fauteux wrote: > >Hi; > > > >We are doing an experiment with agilent 44K (3 biological reps, > >complete dye-swap): > > > >a - control > >b - treatment 1 > >c - treatment 2 > >d - treatment 1 + treatment 2 > > > >and I would like to output evidence of the interaction between two > >treatments and effect on gene expression. > > > >24 chips: > > > >SlideNumber Cy3 Cy5 > >1 a1 b1 > >2 a2 b2 > >3 a3 b3 > >4 b1 a1 > >5 b2 a2 > >6 b3 a3 > >7 a1 c1 > >8 a2 c2 > >9 a3 c3 > >10 c1 a1 > >11 c2 a2 > >12 c3 a3 > >13 b1 d1 > >14 b2 d2 > >15 b3 d3 > >16 d1 b1 > >17 d2 b2 > >18 d3 b3 > >19 c1 d1 > >20 c2 d2 > >21 c3 d3 > >22 d1 c1 > >23 d2 c2 > >24 d3 c3 > > > >I've done several tests with limma to isolate significant results in > >the following: > >1- a vs b; > >2- a vs c; > >3- b bs d; > >4- c vs d; > > > >with this "targets.txt": > > > >SlideNumber Cy3 Cy5 > >1 a b > >2 a b > >3 a b > >4 b a > >5 b a > >6 b a > >7 a c > >8 a c > >9 a c > >10 c a > >11 c a > >12 c a > >13 b d > >14 b d > >15 b d > >16 d b > >17 d b > >18 d b > >19 c d > >20 c d > >21 c d > >22 d c > >23 d c > >24 d c > > > >First option: > > > > > f <- paste(targets$Cy3, targets$Cy5, sep = ".") > > > f <- factor(f, levels = c("a.b", "b.a", > > "a.c", "c.a", "b.d", "d.a", "c.d", "d.a")) > > > design1 <- model.matrix(~0 + f) > > > > > design > > a.b b.a a.c c.a b.d d.b c.d d.c > >1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > >2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > >3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > >4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 > >5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 > >6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 > >7 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 > >8 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 > >9 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 > >10 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 > >11 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 > >12 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 > >13 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 > >14 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 > >15 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 > >16 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 > >17 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 > >18 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 > >19 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 > >20 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 > >21 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 > >22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 > >23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 > >24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 > > > >This gives significant results for each one of the "levels" but does > >not take into account the dye-swap (i.e "a.b" and "b.a" are considered > >independent). > > > >Other tested option is: > > > design2 <- modelMatrix(targets,ref="a") > > > > > design > > p s sp > >ab1 0 1 0 > >ab2 0 1 0 > >ab3 0 1 0 > >ba1 0 -1 0 > >ba2 0 -1 0 > >ba3 0 -1 0 > >ac1 1 0 0 > >ac2 1 0 0 > >ac3 1 0 0 > >ca1 -1 0 0 > >ca2 -1 0 0 > >ca3 -1 0 0 > >bd1 0 -1 1 > >bd2 0 -1 1 > >bd3 0 -1 1 > >db1 0 1 -1 > >db2 0 1 -1 > >db3 0 1 -1 > >cd1 -1 0 1 > >cd2 -1 0 1 > >cd3 -1 0 1 > >dc1 1 0 -1 > >dc2 1 0 -1 > >dc3 1 0 -1 > > > >This gives results for "b" effect, "c" effect, and "d" effect. > >However, I could'nt get results for the 4 comparisons of interest > >(even though the matrix is coherent). > > > >Questions: > > > >1 - What would be the best option (design and operations) to get to > >contrasts of interest considering that the experiment has a 4 > >treatments in a factorial design without common reference (a vs b, a > >vs c, b vs d, c vs d) and taking into account the dye-effect; > > > >2- Is this method (4 contrasts) the best one considering that > >treatment "d" is a combination of treatments "b" and "c" (factorial > >type design). How could one directly get to identify genes > >differentially expressed due to the interaction between treatment "b" > >and treatment "c" (i.e effect of "d" over "b" and "c"). > > > >In Limma Users Guide and elsewhere on this forum, I could not find a > >clear description of how this type of analysis should be performed, > >even though it is a simple design (i.e 2X2 factorial without a common > >reference - two color arrays - complete dye swap). > > > >Thanks for your time, best regards. > > > >Fran?ois Fauteux > >?tudiant ? la ma?trise en biologie v?g?tale > >Centre de recherche en horticulture > >Universit? Laval > >francois.fauteux at gmail.com > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Bioconductor mailing list > >Bioconductor at stat.math.ethz.ch > >https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioconductor > >Search the archives: > >http://news.gmane.org/gmane.science.biology.informatics.conductor > > Naomi S. Altman 814-865-3791 (voice) > Associate Professor > Dept. of Statistics 814-863-7114 (fax) > Penn State University 814-865-1348 (Statistics) > University Park, PA 16802-2111 > >
ADD REPLY
0
Entering edit mode
Naomi Altman ★ 6.0k
@naomi-altman-380
Last seen 3.0 years ago
United States
A single channel analysis does not treat a 2-channel array like 2 single-channel arrays. It treats the array as a block. The single channel analysis is more powerful, unless the errors are perfectly correlated within spot. Also, it is much easier to handle complicated designs, where complicated means pretty much everything that is not a paired t-test or reference design. Using the difference is channels is certainly valid. I cannot see why people want to throw away the information about the treatment means, however, which is often important to the biologists I collaborate with. --Naomi At 04:52 PM 4/23/2006, francois fauteux wrote: >Hi again; > >Trying to work this out in the "two channels" way (I don't get clearly >what are the benefits of treating a two-color array as if it was two >one-color arrays)... If really necessary and clearly justified, I >might whant to switch to this type of analysis, but otherwise would >like to stay in what's more 'standard'. > >Other try, but new design get error messages when lmfit, coefficients >not estimable 1 out of 2: > > > fit4 <- lmFit(MAq, weights=w, design4) >Coefficients not estimable: b.a c.a d.c > > > design4 > a.b b.a a.c c.a b.d d.b c.d d.c > [1,] 1 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 > [2,] 1 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 > [3,] 1 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 > [4,] -1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 > [5,] -1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 > [6,] -1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 > [7,] 0 0 1 -1 0 0 0 0 > [8,] 0 0 1 -1 0 0 0 0 > [9,] 0 0 1 -1 0 0 0 0 >[10,] 0 0 -1 1 0 0 0 0 >[11,] 0 0 -1 1 0 0 0 0 >[12,] 0 0 -1 1 0 0 0 0 >[13,] 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0 0 >[14,] 0 0 0 0 1 -1 0 0 >[15,] 0 0 0 0 1 -1 0 0 >[16,] 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 >[17,] 0 0 0 0 -1 1 0 0 >[18,] 0 0 0 0 -1 1 0 0 >[19,] 0 0 0 0 -1 0 1 -1 >[20,] 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 -1 >[21,] 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 -1 >[22,] 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 1 >[23,] 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 1 >[24,] 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 1 > >Why are Coefficients not estimable??? Thought this design would take >into account the dye effects... > >Second design try: > >design3 <- modelMatrix(targets,ref="a") > > contrast.matrix <- makeContrasts(b,c,d-b,d-c, >+ levels=design3) > > contrast.matrix > b c d - b d - c >c 0 1 0 -1 >b 1 0 -1 0 >d 0 0 1 1 > >This seems correct a priori. If you could confirm that it is OK, and >that this is indeed the best way of working things out... > >Many thanks, regards. > >Fran?ois > >On 4/23/06, Naomi Altman <naomi at="" stat.psu.edu=""> wrote: > > I would use single channel analysis for > > this. The only problem is that Limma allows only > > 1 level of random effects. Hence, you will need to average the dye-swaps. > > > > Anyways with single channel analysis, you have a > > balanced incomplete block design with factorial > > treatments, and the analysis is much simplified. > > > > --Naomi > > > > At 01:41 PM 4/23/2006, francois fauteux wrote: > > >Hi; > > > > > >We are doing an experiment with agilent 44K (3 biological reps, > > >complete dye-swap): > > > > > >a - control > > >b - treatment 1 > > >c - treatment 2 > > >d - treatment 1 + treatment 2 > > > > > >and I would like to output evidence of the interaction between two > > >treatments and effect on gene expression. > > > > > >24 chips: > > > > > >SlideNumber Cy3 Cy5 > > >1 a1 b1 > > >2 a2 b2 > > >3 a3 b3 > > >4 b1 a1 > > >5 b2 a2 > > >6 b3 a3 > > >7 a1 c1 > > >8 a2 c2 > > >9 a3 c3 > > >10 c1 a1 > > >11 c2 a2 > > >12 c3 a3 > > >13 b1 d1 > > >14 b2 d2 > > >15 b3 d3 > > >16 d1 b1 > > >17 d2 b2 > > >18 d3 b3 > > >19 c1 d1 > > >20 c2 d2 > > >21 c3 d3 > > >22 d1 c1 > > >23 d2 c2 > > >24 d3 c3 > > > > > >I've done several tests with limma to isolate significant results in > > >the following: > > >1- a vs b; > > >2- a vs c; > > >3- b bs d; > > >4- c vs d; > > > > > >with this "targets.txt": > > > > > >SlideNumber Cy3 Cy5 > > >1 a b > > >2 a b > > >3 a b > > >4 b a > > >5 b a > > >6 b a > > >7 a c > > >8 a c > > >9 a c > > >10 c a > > >11 c a > > >12 c a > > >13 b d > > >14 b d > > >15 b d > > >16 d b > > >17 d b > > >18 d b > > >19 c d > > >20 c d > > >21 c d > > >22 d c > > >23 d c > > >24 d c > > > > > >First option: > > > > > > > f <- paste(targets$Cy3, targets$Cy5, sep = ".") > > > > f <- factor(f, levels = c("a.b", "b.a", > > > "a.c", "c.a", "b.d", "d.a", "c.d", "d.a")) > > > > design1 <- model.matrix(~0 + f) > > > > > > > design > > > a.b b.a a.c c.a b.d d.b c.d d.c > > >1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > > >2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > > >3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > > >4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 > > >5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 > > >6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 > > >7 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 > > >8 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 > > >9 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 > > >10 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 > > >11 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 > > >12 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 > > >13 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 > > >14 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 > > >15 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 > > >16 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 > > >17 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 > > >18 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 > > >19 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 > > >20 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 > > >21 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 > > >22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 > > >23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 > > >24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 > > > > > >This gives significant results for each one of the "levels" but does > > >not take into account the dye-swap (i.e "a.b" and "b.a" are considered > > >independent). > > > > > >Other tested option is: > > > > design2 <- modelMatrix(targets,ref="a") > > > > > > > design > > > p s sp > > >ab1 0 1 0 > > >ab2 0 1 0 > > >ab3 0 1 0 > > >ba1 0 -1 0 > > >ba2 0 -1 0 > > >ba3 0 -1 0 > > >ac1 1 0 0 > > >ac2 1 0 0 > > >ac3 1 0 0 > > >ca1 -1 0 0 > > >ca2 -1 0 0 > > >ca3 -1 0 0 > > >bd1 0 -1 1 > > >bd2 0 -1 1 > > >bd3 0 -1 1 > > >db1 0 1 -1 > > >db2 0 1 -1 > > >db3 0 1 -1 > > >cd1 -1 0 1 > > >cd2 -1 0 1 > > >cd3 -1 0 1 > > >dc1 1 0 -1 > > >dc2 1 0 -1 > > >dc3 1 0 -1 > > > > > >This gives results for "b" effect, "c" effect, and "d" effect. > > >However, I could'nt get results for the 4 comparisons of interest > > >(even though the matrix is coherent). > > > > > >Questions: > > > > > >1 - What would be the best option (design and operations) to get to > > >contrasts of interest considering that the experiment has a 4 > > >treatments in a factorial design without common reference (a vs b, a > > >vs c, b vs d, c vs d) and taking into account the dye-effect; > > > > > >2- Is this method (4 contrasts) the best one considering that > > >treatment "d" is a combination of treatments "b" and "c" (factorial > > >type design). How could one directly get to identify genes > > >differentially expressed due to the interaction between treatment "b" > > >and treatment "c" (i.e effect of "d" over "b" and "c"). > > > > > >In Limma Users Guide and elsewhere on this forum, I could not find a > > >clear description of how this type of analysis should be performed, > > >even though it is a simple design (i.e 2X2 factorial without a common > > >reference - two color arrays - complete dye swap). > > > > > >Thanks for your time, best regards. > > > > > >Fran?ois Fauteux > > >?tudiant ? la ma?trise en biologie v?g?tale > > >Centre de recherche en horticulture > > >Universit? Laval > > >francois.fauteux at gmail.com > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > >Bioconductor mailing list > > >Bioconductor at stat.math.ethz.ch > > >https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioconductor > > >Search the archives: > > >http://news.gmane.org/gmane.science.biology.informatics.conductor > > > > Naomi S. Altman 814-865-3791 (voice) > > Associate Professor > > Dept. of Statistics 814-863-7114 (fax) > > Penn State University 814-865-1348 (Statistics) > > University Park, PA 16802-2111 > > > > Naomi S. Altman 814-865-3791 (voice) Associate Professor Dept. of Statistics 814-863-7114 (fax) Penn State University 814-865-1348 (Statistics) University Park, PA 16802-2111
ADD COMMENT

Login before adding your answer.

Traffic: 999 users visited in the last hour
Help About
FAQ
Access RSS
API
Stats

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.

Powered by the version 2.3.6