Entering edit mode
Vawter, Marquis
▴
70
@vawter-marquis-23
Last seen 10.2 years ago
Hi Chris, we have seen the same phenomenon with affyRNA degradation
plots.
There is definitely a smooth trend, until the last point. It is very
reproducible, in fact this position should show the highest intensity
overall, but shows about 50% of what would be expected.
Best, Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: bioconductor-request@stat.math.ethz.ch
[mailto:bioconductor-request@stat.math.ethz.ch]
Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2003 4:36 PM
To: bioconductor@stat.math.ethz.ch
Subject: Bioconductor Digest, Vol 6, Issue 1
Send Bioconductor mailing list submissions to
bioconductor@stat.math.ethz.ch
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://www.stat.math.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioconductor
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
bioconductor-request@stat.math.ethz.ch
You can reach the person managing the list at
bioconductor-owner@stat.math.ethz.ch
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Bioconductor digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. marrayNorm - Getting Data Out (michael watson (IAH-C))
2. RNA degradation (Chris Paulse)
3. Repost: marrayNorm 1.1.3 gets stuck (Rob Dunne)
4. Re: Spelling mistakes and some questions re limma (Gordon Smyth)
5. Re: RMA t-test (Rafael A. Irizarry)
6. Re: Repost: marrayNorm 1.1.3 gets stuck (Gordon Smyth)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 11:16:02 +0100
From: "michael watson (IAH-C)" <michael.watson@bbsrc.ac.uk>
Subject: [BioC] marrayNorm - Getting Data Out
To: Bioconductor mailing list <bioconductor@stat.math.ethz.ch>
Message-ID:
<20B7EB075F2D4542AFFAF813E98ACD9301C0099D@cl-exsrv1.irad.bbsrc.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hi
This sounds kind of stupid, but if I have my data in an marrayNorm
object,
can anyone give any pointers on how to get it out into, say, a tab-
delimited
text file?
Are there any special functions or is it simply write.table() ..??
Thanks
Mick
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 15:18:25 -0700
From: "Chris Paulse" <chrispaulse@hotmail.com>
Subject: [BioC] RNA degradation
To: bioconductor@stat.math.ethz.ch
Message-ID: <bay8-f114y0om3g80ce00005707@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Hi,
How much faith should I place in the p-values reported by
summaryAffyRNAdeg?
The plots of average probe intensity vs probe number (5'<-->3') for
some
chips I have show a definite positive trend, but usually the last one
or two
data points drive the curve negative. Does this correspond to any
known
phenomenon?
Thanks,
Chris Paulse
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 08:24:07 +1000 (EST)
From: Rob Dunne <rob.dunne@csiro.au>
Subject: [BioC] Repost: marrayNorm 1.1.3 gets stuck
To: bioconductor@stat.math.ethz.ch
Message-ID: <16169.38663.319920.3044@pride.nsw.cmis.CSIRO.AU>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Hi List,
Please excuse the repost. No one responded to my
previous post -- and it seems to me to be quite
important.
The problem is the new marrayNorm 1.1.3
(installed with bioconductor 1.2) -- which seems to get
stuck in an endless loop
marrayNorm 1.1.3 (installed with bioconductor 1.2)
> unix.time(experiment1.norm<-maNorm(experiment1, norm="loess"))
Timing stopped at: 8874.73 19.65 10289.06 0 0
ie I interrupted the process -
but with marrayNorm 1.1.1 reinstalled
marrayNorm 1.1.1
> unix.time(experiment1.norm<-maNorm(experiment1, norm="loess"))
[1] 803.99 29.73 843.40 0.00 0.00
is there a known problem with this package?
bye
rob
--
Rob Dunne Fax: +61 2 9325 3200 Tel: +61 2 9325 3263
CSIRO Mathematical and Information Sciences +61 2 9325 3100
Locked Bag 17, North Ryde, New South Wales, Australia, 1670
http://matilda.vu.edu.au/~dunne Email: Rob.Dunne@csiro.au
Java has certainly revolutionized marketing and litigation.
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2003 12:09:54 +1000
From: Gordon Smyth <smyth@wehi.edu.au>
Subject: [BioC] Re: Spelling mistakes and some questions re limma
To: "Dave Waddell" <dwaddell@nutecsciences.com>
Cc: BioC Mailing List <bioconductor@stat.math.ethz.ch>
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.1.20030801111855.00aed328@imaphost.wehi.edu.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Dear Dave,
At 10:45 PM 31/07/2003, Dave Waddell wrote:
>You have a couple of spelling mistakes in the page:
>
><http: bioinf.wehi.edu.au="" limma="" library="" limma="" html="" 5linearmodels.htm="" l="">http
://bioinf.wehi.edu.au/limma/library/limma/html/5linearmodels.html
>
>estime and explanded
Thanks for letting me know. These typos have been corrected in later
versions of limma.
>Can you point me to a place that would more fully explain the design
>matrix and contrasts with respect to 2-colour dye experiments?
My best suggestion at this time is:
Yang, Y. H., and Speed, T. P. (2003). Design and analysis of
comparative
microarray experiments. In T. P. Speed (ed.), Statistical Analysis of
Gene
Expression Microarray Data. Chapman & Hall/CRC Press, pages 35-91.
But basically limma is breaking new ground here so there are no good
references for this stuff apart from the User's Guide itself. I am
working
on providing more user friendly interfaces to create design and
contrast
matrices and more documentation, but obviously these things take time.
In
the meantime, a local statistician would be able to give you some
help. Or
you could ask for help on bioconductor about specific designs.
> In some Bioconductor packages, the design matrix appears to be
> applicable to the Cy3/Cy5 experiment as a whole and in others to the
> individual Cy3 and Cy5 experiments.
I am not clear what you mean here. As far as I know, limma is the only
package to have the concept of a design matrix and limma is designed
to
analyze the whole experiment at once. Other packages basically assume
you
are making only one comparison usually with replicate arrays.
> It is very confusing. In addition, the meaning of a contrasts
matrix and
> how to put one together is not very clear. Both of these values, if
> applied incorrectly, would appear to me (as a non-statistician
assigned
> to put together a package) to completely change the results.
Yes, this is true.
> Finally, can you tell me how limma handles control spots?
The only explicit handling of control spots in limma is in the plotMA
function. I assume that you will leave the control spots in during the
normalization (perhaps using weights to downweight ratio controls
spots or
to upweight MSP titration spots) and you will remove them before doing
inference about differential expression. There are subsetting commands
to
make removing control spots easy.
>Thanks for a great package, Dave.
Thanks for your comments.
Gordon
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 22:31:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Rafael A. Irizarry" <ririzarr@jhsph.edu>
Subject: Re: [BioC] RMA t-test
To: James MacDonald <jmacdon@med.umich.edu>
Cc: bioconductor@stat.math.ethz.ch, dgrigor1@jhmi.edu
Message-ID:
<pine.gso.4.10.10307312222420.8322-100000@athena.biostat.jhsph.edu>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
hi! fyi, all the ROC curves in the NAR paper comparing expression
measures
was done on 1-1 comps (i.e. 2 chips). rma seems to perform weel
according to these curves. notice that if you only have one
chip median polish turns into a median which in my opinion is not a
terrible thing to use.
as for t-tests with two arrays all you could use for estimating
variability (denominator in the t-test) are the residuals from the
median
polish fit. these have (at least) two problemsB
1) as james points out they have no information about biological
variation
2) its not clear what the statistical properites of these residuals
are.
the se estimate one gets with expresso-rma are given only as an ad-hoc
estimate of uncertainty of the expression estimates due to technology.
hope this helps,
rafael
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, James MacDonald wrote:
> I would be cautious about using RMA with only two chips. You will be
> estimating the probe-specific intensity with only two observations,
so
> it is doubtful that the estimate will be very accurate. I recall
reading
> somewhere that a good minimum number of chips is around 5-6 for RMA.
>
> As for a t-test with only one observation per group, this is not
> possible. How are you going to estimate the variance for each group?
> Without replication all you can do is ratios, and you are then stuck
> with the assumption that large ratios equal significant differences.
>
> Jim
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
> >>> DMITRY GRIGORYEV <dgrigor1@jhmi.edu> 07/28/03 12:08PM >>>
> Hi everyone.
>
> One quick question.
> When I run RMA on just two chips, how could I conduct pairwise
t-test
> for each probe set between these chips?
>
> Thank you
>
> Dima
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bioconductor mailing list
> Bioconductor@stat.math.ethz.ch
> https://www.stat.math.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioconductor
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bioconductor mailing list
> Bioconductor@stat.math.ethz.ch
> https://www.stat.math.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioconductor
>
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2003 15:30:19 +1000
From: Gordon Smyth <smyth@wehi.edu.au>
Subject: Re: [BioC] Repost: marrayNorm 1.1.3 gets stuck
To: Rob.Dunne@csiro.au
Cc: BioC Mailing List <bioconductor@stat.math.ethz.ch>
Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20030801151709.00b1ee48@imaphost.wehi.edu.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>Hi List,
>
>Please excuse the repost. No one responded to my
>previous post -- and it seems to me to be quite
>important.
>
>The problem is the new marrayNorm 1.1.3
>(installed with bioconductor 1.2) -- which seems to get
>stuck in an endless loop
It isn't in an endless loop, it's just very slow.
The problem is the loess function. If you use family="symmetric" and
iterations=4 to get a robust loess curve rather than just least
squares,
then the function is quite slow with lots of data and you get heaps of
warnings associated with memory limits and the use of a k-d tree. If
you
use surface="direct" to avoid the k-d tree and stop the warnings, then
the
function is very slow indeed with lots of points. You see the result
below
when you try to run it on 30,000 data points.
Versions of marrayNorm prior to 1.1.3 used least squares for the loess
curves - much quicker but not ideal as a normalization tool.
I have used some tricks to avoid this sort of speed degradation in the
limma package. I believe that Jean is in the process of implementing
to
same sort of thing in the marrayNorm package.
Regards
Gordon
>marrayNorm 1.1.3 (installed with bioconductor 1.2)
> > unix.time(experiment1.norm<-maNorm(experiment1, norm="loess"))
>Timing stopped at: 8874.73 19.65 10289.06 0 0
>
>ie I interrupted the process -
>but with marrayNorm 1.1.1 reinstalled
>
> marrayNorm 1.1.1
> > unix.time(experiment1.norm<-maNorm(experiment1, norm="loess"))
>[1] 803.99 29.73 843.40 0.00 0.00
>
>
>
>is there a known problem with this package?
>
> bye
> rob
>
>--
>Rob Dunne Fax: +61 2 9325 3200 Tel: +61 2 9325 3263
>CSIRO Mathematical and Information Sciences +61 2 9325 3100
>Locked Bag 17, North Ryde, New South Wales, Australia, 1670
><http: matilda.vu.edu.au="" ~dunne="">http://matilda.vu.edu.au/~dunne
Email:
><https: www.stat.math.ethz.ch="" mailman="" listinfo="" bioconductor="">Rob.Dunn
e at
>csiro.au
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Bioconductor mailing list
Bioconductor@stat.math.ethz.ch
https://www.stat.math.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioconductor
End of Bioconductor Digest, Vol 6, Issue 1
