Differential expression
2
0
Entering edit mode
@kimpel-mark-w-727
Last seen 9.6 years ago
Makis, I am speaking as a biologist, not as a statistician. Under conditions of most biologic experiments, the assumption is that cells need to continue mundane "housekeeping" functions and that these are minimally effected by the differential conditions of the experiment. In my area, which is neuroscience, we hope to see differential expression of genes involved with neurotransmission or synaptic plasticity, but do not expect to see differential expression of genes involved in just keeping neurons and support cells alive and intact. It turns out that most genes are involved in the latter, not the former, processes. We occasionally see examples on this list, however, where very drastic experimental conditions, such as one might see in toxicology, lead to differential expression of a larger percentage of genes. It is important, then, to put your experiment into biologic context to consider whether your current findings make sense and how best to proceed with normalization and analysis. For instance, normalization techniques that make sense when only a small percentage of genes are differentially expressed may not be appropriate when a much large percentage of genes are differentially expressed (and I'll let the statisticians on this list address what those procedures are and how to decide which to use when). If you would, you might describe for the list the context of your experiment so that others might know how best to advise you to proceed. Mark Mark W. Kimpel MD Indiana University School of Medicine .ch] On Behalf Of E Motakis, Mathematics Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 11:07 AM To: Bioconductor Subject: [BioC] Differential expression Dear all, I am working on two colours microarray experiments and, from a set of 42000 genes, I would like to identify the differentially expressed ones. I have read several articles on this issue and most of them imply that the number of differential expressed genes in such experiments should be a small number (compared to the whole set). Could anyone tell me why this is correct? What if I find half of the genes to be differentially expressed according to the t-test p-value? I am not discussing the issue of p-values and q-values yet. I am asking only about why most of the papers imply a low number of differentially expressed genes. Thank you, Makis ---------------------- E Motakis, Mathematics E.Motakis at bristol.ac.uk _______________________________________________ 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
Microarray Normalization Microarray Normalization • 1.1k views
ADD COMMENT
0
Entering edit mode
Naomi Altman ★ 6.0k
@naomi-altman-380
Last seen 2.9 years ago
United States
In many experiments, a large number of genes differentially express. Loess normalization will continue to work reasonably well if, at each level of intensity "A" the the average up and down regulation are about equal. However, you would probably not want to count on this on small regions of the array, so it would probably be best to use a whole-array loess, rather than print-tip loess if many tips were used. The problem, of course, is to understand if the average up and down regulation are about equal. E.g. if you are looking at transcription factor mutants, this would be a very bad assumption. --Naomi At 11:25 AM 5/26/2006, Kimpel, Mark William wrote: >Makis, > >I am speaking as a biologist, not as a statistician. Under conditions of >most biologic experiments, the assumption is that cells need to continue >mundane "housekeeping" functions and that these are minimally effected >by the differential conditions of the experiment. In my area, which is >neuroscience, we hope to see differential expression of genes involved >with neurotransmission or synaptic plasticity, but do not expect to see >differential expression of genes involved in just keeping neurons and >support cells alive and intact. It turns out that most genes are >involved in the latter, not the former, processes. We occasionally see >examples on this list, however, where very drastic experimental >conditions, such as one might see in toxicology, lead to differential >expression of a larger percentage of genes. > >It is important, then, to put your experiment into biologic context to >consider whether your current findings make sense and how best to >proceed with normalization and analysis. For instance, normalization >techniques that make sense when only a small percentage of genes are >differentially expressed may not be appropriate when a much large >percentage of genes are differentially expressed (and I'll let the >statisticians on this list address what those procedures are and how to >decide which to use when). > >If you would, you might describe for the list the context of your >experiment so that others might know how best to advise you to proceed. > >Mark > >Mark W. Kimpel MD > >Indiana University School of Medicine > >.ch] On Behalf Of E Motakis, Mathematics >Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 11:07 AM >To: Bioconductor >Subject: [BioC] Differential expression > >Dear all, > >I am working on two colours microarray experiments and, from a set of >42000 >genes, I would like to identify the differentially expressed ones. I >have >read several articles on this issue and most of them imply that the >number >of differential expressed genes in such experiments should be a small >number (compared to the whole set). > >Could anyone tell me why this is correct? What if I find half of the >genes >to be differentially expressed according to the t-test p-value? > >I am not discussing the issue of p-values and q-values yet. I am asking >only about why most of the papers imply a low number of differentially >expressed genes. > >Thank you, >Makis > > >---------------------- >E Motakis, Mathematics >E.Motakis at bristol.ac.uk > >_______________________________________________ >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 > >_______________________________________________ >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 Naomi & others, This is the first I've heard (that I remember...) that loess normalization is less susceptible to problems with a large percentage (~ >30%) of genes changing. I'm wondering if this would be an OK method to use when comparing different tissue types. I don't think there is any reason to expect the average regulation up vs. down to be any different, although I could check this by comparing mean expression level between the tissues at various spans of A... I'm interested in this generally, although right now I'm working on a set of Affy arrays. There is a cyclical loess normalization available, and I'd like to get any opinions as to whether this might be a better way to go than quantile normalizing the tissues separately, if I want to find expression differences between tissues. Thanks, Jenny At 12:05 PM 5/26/2006, Naomi Altman wrote: >In many experiments, a large number of genes differentially express. >Loess normalization will continue to work reasonably well if, at each >level of intensity "A" the the average up and down regulation are >about equal. However, you would probably not want to count on this >on small regions of the array, so it would probably be best to use a >whole-array loess, rather than print-tip loess if many tips were used. > >The problem, of course, is to understand if the average up and down >regulation are about equal. E.g. if you are looking at transcription >factor mutants, this would be a very bad assumption. > >--Naomi > >At 11:25 AM 5/26/2006, Kimpel, Mark William wrote: > >Makis, > > > >I am speaking as a biologist, not as a statistician. Under conditions of > >most biologic experiments, the assumption is that cells need to continue > >mundane "housekeeping" functions and that these are minimally effected > >by the differential conditions of the experiment. In my area, which is > >neuroscience, we hope to see differential expression of genes involved > >with neurotransmission or synaptic plasticity, but do not expect to see > >differential expression of genes involved in just keeping neurons and > >support cells alive and intact. It turns out that most genes are > >involved in the latter, not the former, processes. We occasionally see > >examples on this list, however, where very drastic experimental > >conditions, such as one might see in toxicology, lead to differential > >expression of a larger percentage of genes. > > > >It is important, then, to put your experiment into biologic context to > >consider whether your current findings make sense and how best to > >proceed with normalization and analysis. For instance, normalization > >techniques that make sense when only a small percentage of genes are > >differentially expressed may not be appropriate when a much large > >percentage of genes are differentially expressed (and I'll let the > >statisticians on this list address what those procedures are and how to > >decide which to use when). > > > >If you would, you might describe for the list the context of your > >experiment so that others might know how best to advise you to proceed. > > > >Mark > > > >Mark W. Kimpel MD > > > >Indiana University School of Medicine > > > >.ch] On Behalf Of E Motakis, Mathematics > >Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 11:07 AM > >To: Bioconductor > >Subject: [BioC] Differential expression > > > >Dear all, > > > >I am working on two colours microarray experiments and, from a set of > >42000 > >genes, I would like to identify the differentially expressed ones. I > >have > >read several articles on this issue and most of them imply that the > >number > >of differential expressed genes in such experiments should be a small > >number (compared to the whole set). > > > >Could anyone tell me why this is correct? What if I find half of the > >genes > >to be differentially expressed according to the t-test p-value? > > > >I am not discussing the issue of p-values and q-values yet. I am asking > >only about why most of the papers imply a low number of differentially > >expressed genes. > > > >Thank you, > >Makis > > > > > >---------------------- > >E Motakis, Mathematics > >E.Motakis at bristol.ac.uk > > > >_______________________________________________ > >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 > > > >_______________________________________________ > >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 > >_______________________________________________ >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 Jenny Drnevich, Ph.D. Functional Genomics Bioinformatics Specialist W.M. Keck Center for Comparative and Functional Genomics Roy J. Carver Biotechnology Center University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign 330 ERML 1201 W. Gregory Dr. Urbana, IL 61801 USA ph: 217-244-7355 fax: 217-265-5066 e-mail: drnevich at uiuc.edu
ADD REPLY
0
Entering edit mode
I cannot imagine that cyclic loess would be any better or worse than RMA if there is substantial differential expression. The problems really start before normalization. Usually samples are prepared for hybridization so that the total RNA or mRNA are about equal concentration. So the mean on each array should be about the same, even if there is substantially more down (up) regulation in one condition. If the samples are prepared so that they include the same number of cells, you have some hope of observing bulk up or down regulation - assuming that you can obtain the same yield/mRNA/cell. --Naomi At 05:54 PM 5/30/2006, Jenny Drnevich wrote: >Hi Naomi & others, > >This is the first I've heard (that I remember...) that loess normalization >is less susceptible to problems with a large percentage (~ >30%) of genes >changing. I'm wondering if this would be an OK method to use when comparing >different tissue types. I don't think there is any reason to expect the >average regulation up vs. down to be any different, although I could check >this by comparing mean expression level between the tissues at various >spans of A... I'm interested in this generally, although right now I'm >working on a set of Affy arrays. There is a cyclical loess normalization >available, and I'd like to get any opinions as to whether this might be a >better way to go than quantile normalizing the tissues separately, if I >want to find expression differences between tissues. > >Thanks, >Jenny > >At 12:05 PM 5/26/2006, Naomi Altman wrote: > >In many experiments, a large number of genes differentially express. > >Loess normalization will continue to work reasonably well if, at each > >level of intensity "A" the the average up and down regulation are > >about equal. However, you would probably not want to count on this > >on small regions of the array, so it would probably be best to use a > >whole-array loess, rather than print-tip loess if many tips were used. > > > >The problem, of course, is to understand if the average up and down > >regulation are about equal. E.g. if you are looking at transcription > >factor mutants, this would be a very bad assumption. > > > >--Naomi > > > >At 11:25 AM 5/26/2006, Kimpel, Mark William wrote: > > >Makis, > > > > > >I am speaking as a biologist, not as a statistician. Under conditions of > > >most biologic experiments, the assumption is that cells need to continue > > >mundane "housekeeping" functions and that these are minimally effected > > >by the differential conditions of the experiment. In my area, which is > > >neuroscience, we hope to see differential expression of genes involved > > >with neurotransmission or synaptic plasticity, but do not expect to see > > >differential expression of genes involved in just keeping neurons and > > >support cells alive and intact. It turns out that most genes are > > >involved in the latter, not the former, processes. We occasionally see > > >examples on this list, however, where very drastic experimental > > >conditions, such as one might see in toxicology, lead to differential > > >expression of a larger percentage of genes. > > > > > >It is important, then, to put your experiment into biologic context to > > >consider whether your current findings make sense and how best to > > >proceed with normalization and analysis. For instance, normalization > > >techniques that make sense when only a small percentage of genes are > > >differentially expressed may not be appropriate when a much large > > >percentage of genes are differentially expressed (and I'll let the > > >statisticians on this list address what those procedures are and how to > > >decide which to use when). > > > > > >If you would, you might describe for the list the context of your > > >experiment so that others might know how best to advise you to proceed. > > > > > >Mark > > > > > >Mark W. Kimpel MD > > > > > >Indiana University School of Medicine > > > > > >.ch] On Behalf Of E Motakis, Mathematics > > >Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 11:07 AM > > >To: Bioconductor > > >Subject: [BioC] Differential expression > > > > > >Dear all, > > > > > >I am working on two colours microarray experiments and, from a set of > > >42000 > > >genes, I would like to identify the differentially expressed ones. I > > >have > > >read several articles on this issue and most of them imply that the > > >number > > >of differential expressed genes in such experiments should be a small > > >number (compared to the whole set). > > > > > >Could anyone tell me why this is correct? What if I find half of the > > >genes > > >to be differentially expressed according to the t-test p-value? > > > > > >I am not discussing the issue of p-values and q-values yet. I am asking > > >only about why most of the papers imply a low number of differentially > > >expressed genes. > > > > > >Thank you, > > >Makis > > > > > > > > >---------------------- > > >E Motakis, Mathematics > > >E.Motakis at bristol.ac.uk > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > >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 > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > >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 > > > >_______________________________________________ > >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 > >Jenny Drnevich, Ph.D. > >Functional Genomics Bioinformatics Specialist >W.M. Keck Center for Comparative and Functional Genomics >Roy J. Carver Biotechnology Center >University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign > >330 ERML >1201 W. Gregory Dr. >Urbana, IL 61801 >USA > >ph: 217-244-7355 >fax: 217-265-5066 >e-mail: drnevich at uiuc.edu > >_______________________________________________ >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
Hi all, I think there are two general issues here: 1. The risk of over-normalizing and washing out biologically real differences is the larger, the more flexible the normalization method is, i.e. the larger its (effective) number of parameters is. E.g. if you use loess, a large bandwidth (small number of effective parameters) is better. The vsn method uses 2 parameters per array (scale factor and offset). I don't know whether or how one can quantify the effective number of parameters for quantile normalization - does anyone? 2. Then remains the question of how to estimate the normalization parameters correctly. There are two guidelines: - use a robust method with a high breakdown point (the goal being that it is not affected by the differentially expressed genes = outliers) - if at all possible, try to narrow down the probes from which you fit the parameters from all genes (incl.the differential ones) to a subset which are enriched for non-changing (e.g. spike-ins, or known negative controls) [ There is some discussion of the robustness issue (incl. simulations to show the effect of unbalanced numbers of "ups" and "downs") in Stat Appl Genet Mol Biol. 2003;2(1):Article3. PMID: 16646781 ] Best wishes Wolfgang. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Wolfgang Huber EBI/EMBL Cambridge UK http://www.ebi.ac.uk/huber Naomi Altman wrote: > I cannot imagine that cyclic loess would be any better or worse than > RMA if there is substantial differential expression. > > The problems really start before normalization. Usually samples are > prepared for hybridization so that the total RNA or mRNA are about > equal concentration. So the mean on each array should be about the > same, even if there is substantially more down (up) regulation in one > condition. If the samples are prepared so that they include the same > number of cells, you have some hope of observing bulk up or down > regulation - assuming that you can obtain the same yield/mRNA/cell. > > --Naomi > > At 05:54 PM 5/30/2006, Jenny Drnevich wrote: >> Hi Naomi & others, >> >> This is the first I've heard (that I remember...) that loess normalization >> is less susceptible to problems with a large percentage (~ >30%) of genes >> changing. I'm wondering if this would be an OK method to use when comparing >> different tissue types. I don't think there is any reason to expect the >> average regulation up vs. down to be any different, although I could check >> this by comparing mean expression level between the tissues at various >> spans of A... I'm interested in this generally, although right now I'm >> working on a set of Affy arrays. There is a cyclical loess normalization >> available, and I'd like to get any opinions as to whether this might be a >> better way to go than quantile normalizing the tissues separately, if I >> want to find expression differences between tissues. >> >> Thanks, >> Jenny >> >> At 12:05 PM 5/26/2006, Naomi Altman wrote: >>> In many experiments, a large number of genes differentially express. >>> Loess normalization will continue to work reasonably well if, at each >>> level of intensity "A" the the average up and down regulation are >>> about equal. However, you would probably not want to count on this >>> on small regions of the array, so it would probably be best to use a >>> whole-array loess, rather than print-tip loess if many tips were used. >>> >>> The problem, of course, is to understand if the average up and down >>> regulation are about equal. E.g. if you are looking at transcription >>> factor mutants, this would be a very bad assumption. >>> >>> --Naomi >>> >>> At 11:25 AM 5/26/2006, Kimpel, Mark William wrote: >>>> Makis, >>>> >>>> I am speaking as a biologist, not as a statistician. Under conditions of >>>> most biologic experiments, the assumption is that cells need to continue >>>> mundane "housekeeping" functions and that these are minimally effected >>>> by the differential conditions of the experiment. In my area, which is >>>> neuroscience, we hope to see differential expression of genes involved >>>> with neurotransmission or synaptic plasticity, but do not expect to see >>>> differential expression of genes involved in just keeping neurons and >>>> support cells alive and intact. It turns out that most genes are >>>> involved in the latter, not the former, processes. We occasionally see >>>> examples on this list, however, where very drastic experimental >>>> conditions, such as one might see in toxicology, lead to differential >>>> expression of a larger percentage of genes. >>>> >>>> It is important, then, to put your experiment into biologic context to >>>> consider whether your current findings make sense and how best to >>>> proceed with normalization and analysis. For instance, normalization >>>> techniques that make sense when only a small percentage of genes are >>>> differentially expressed may not be appropriate when a much large >>>> percentage of genes are differentially expressed (and I'll let the >>>> statisticians on this list address what those procedures are and how to >>>> decide which to use when). >>>> >>>> If you would, you might describe for the list the context of your >>>> experiment so that others might know how best to advise you to proceed. >>>> >>>> Mark >>>> >>>> Mark W. Kimpel MD >>>> >>>> Indiana University School of Medicine >>>> >>>> .ch] On Behalf Of E Motakis, Mathematics >>>> Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 11:07 AM >>>> To: Bioconductor >>>> Subject: [BioC] Differential expression >>>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> I am working on two colours microarray experiments and, from a set of >>>> 42000 >>>> genes, I would like to identify the differentially expressed ones. I >>>> have >>>> read several articles on this issue and most of them imply that the >>>> number >>>> of differential expressed genes in such experiments should be a small >>>> number (compared to the whole set). >>>> >>>> Could anyone tell me why this is correct? What if I find half of the >>>> genes >>>> to be differentially expressed according to the t-test p-value? >>>> >>>> I am not discussing the issue of p-values and q-values yet. I am asking >>>> only about why most of the papers imply a low number of differentially >>>> expressed genes. >>>> >>>> Thank you, >>>> Makis >>>> >>>> >>>> ---------------------- >>>> E Motakis, Mathematics >>>> E.Motakis at bristol.ac.uk >>>>
ADD REPLY
0
Entering edit mode
@kimpel-mark-w-727
Last seen 9.6 years ago
Jenny and others, I am not a statistician, thus did not speak to specific methods in my post. What I was thinking of, however, was using the invariant set approach where a large number of genes are expected to be differentially expressed. What do the statisticians think? Mark Mark W. Kimpel MD (317) 490-5129 Home, Work, & Mobile 1-(317)-536-2730 FAX -----Original Message----- From: Jenny Drnevich [mailto:drnevich@uiuc.edu] Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 5:54 PM To: Naomi Altman; Kimpel, Mark William; E Motakis, Mathematics Cc: Bioconductor Newsgroup Subject: Re: [BioC] Differential expression Hi Naomi & others, This is the first I've heard (that I remember...) that loess normalization is less susceptible to problems with a large percentage (~ >30%) of genes changing. I'm wondering if this would be an OK method to use when comparing different tissue types. I don't think there is any reason to expect the average regulation up vs. down to be any different, although I could check this by comparing mean expression level between the tissues at various spans of A... I'm interested in this generally, although right now I'm working on a set of Affy arrays. There is a cyclical loess normalization available, and I'd like to get any opinions as to whether this might be a better way to go than quantile normalizing the tissues separately, if I want to find expression differences between tissues. Thanks, Jenny At 12:05 PM 5/26/2006, Naomi Altman wrote: >In many experiments, a large number of genes differentially express. >Loess normalization will continue to work reasonably well if, at each >level of intensity "A" the the average up and down regulation are >about equal. However, you would probably not want to count on this >on small regions of the array, so it would probably be best to use a >whole-array loess, rather than print-tip loess if many tips were used. > >The problem, of course, is to understand if the average up and down >regulation are about equal. E.g. if you are looking at transcription >factor mutants, this would be a very bad assumption. > >--Naomi > >At 11:25 AM 5/26/2006, Kimpel, Mark William wrote: > >Makis, > > > >I am speaking as a biologist, not as a statistician. Under conditions of > >most biologic experiments, the assumption is that cells need to continue > >mundane "housekeeping" functions and that these are minimally effected > >by the differential conditions of the experiment. In my area, which is > >neuroscience, we hope to see differential expression of genes involved > >with neurotransmission or synaptic plasticity, but do not expect to see > >differential expression of genes involved in just keeping neurons and > >support cells alive and intact. It turns out that most genes are > >involved in the latter, not the former, processes. We occasionally see > >examples on this list, however, where very drastic experimental > >conditions, such as one might see in toxicology, lead to differential > >expression of a larger percentage of genes. > > > >It is important, then, to put your experiment into biologic context to > >consider whether your current findings make sense and how best to > >proceed with normalization and analysis. For instance, normalization > >techniques that make sense when only a small percentage of genes are > >differentially expressed may not be appropriate when a much large > >percentage of genes are differentially expressed (and I'll let the > >statisticians on this list address what those procedures are and how to > >decide which to use when). > > > >If you would, you might describe for the list the context of your > >experiment so that others might know how best to advise you to proceed. > > > >Mark > > > >Mark W. Kimpel MD > > > >Indiana University School of Medicine > > > >.ch] On Behalf Of E Motakis, Mathematics > >Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 11:07 AM > >To: Bioconductor > >Subject: [BioC] Differential expression > > > >Dear all, > > > >I am working on two colours microarray experiments and, from a set of > >42000 > >genes, I would like to identify the differentially expressed ones. I > >have > >read several articles on this issue and most of them imply that the > >number > >of differential expressed genes in such experiments should be a small > >number (compared to the whole set). > > > >Could anyone tell me why this is correct? What if I find half of the > >genes > >to be differentially expressed according to the t-test p-value? > > > >I am not discussing the issue of p-values and q-values yet. I am asking > >only about why most of the papers imply a low number of differentially > >expressed genes. > > > >Thank you, > >Makis > > > > > >---------------------- > >E Motakis, Mathematics > >E.Motakis at bristol.ac.uk > > > >_______________________________________________ > >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 > > > >_______________________________________________ > >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 > >_______________________________________________ >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 Jenny Drnevich, Ph.D. Functional Genomics Bioinformatics Specialist W.M. Keck Center for Comparative and Functional Genomics Roy J. Carver Biotechnology Center University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign 330 ERML 1201 W. Gregory Dr. Urbana, IL 61801 USA ph: 217-244-7355 fax: 217-265-5066 e-mail: drnevich at uiuc.edu
ADD COMMENT

Login before adding your answer.

Traffic: 763 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