Question: BMP4 probe '1940386' missing in illuminaHumanv2BeadID.db (as compared to illuminaHumanv2ProbeID.db)
0
gravatar for Julian Lee
10.7 years ago by
Julian Lee140
Julian Lee140 wrote:
Hi, may i know the differences between the 2 packages and why is this so. I have a gene of interest on the Illumina platform and have been using the IlluminaHumanv2ProbeID.db package to annotate it, but things have changed when i moved to R.2.8.0 on illuminaHumanv2BeadID.db package. I'll illustrate it by an example Gene of interest - BMP4 R.2.7.1 illuminaHumanv2ProbeID.db package >bmp4_p<-as.character(unlist(mget('BMP4',revmap(illuminaHumanv2ProbeID SYMBOL)))) > bmp4_p [1] "1850561" "1940386" "3360703" > sessionInfo() R version 2.7.1 (2008-06-23) i386-pc-mingw32 locale: LC_COLLATE=English_United States.1252;LC_CTYPE=English_United States.1252;LC_MONETARY=English_United States.1252;LC_NUMERIC=C;LC_TIME=English_United States.1252 attached base packages: [1] tools stats graphics grDevices utils datasets methods [8] base other attached packages: [1] illuminaHumanv2ProbeID.db_1.1.1 AnnotationDbi_1.2.2 [3] RSQLite_0.6-9 DBI_0.2-4 All looks well. However, when i upgraded to R.2.8.0, and installed the illuminaHumanv2BeadID.db package, i encountered these results R.2.8.0 illuminaHumanv2BeadID.db package > bmp4_p<-as.character(unlist(mget('BMP4',revmap(illuminaHumanv2BeadID SYMBOL)))) > bmp4_p [1] "1850561" "3360703" > sessionInfo() R version 2.8.0 (2008-10-20) i386-pc-mingw32 locale: LC_COLLATE=English_United States.1252;LC_CTYPE=English_United States.1252;LC_MONETARY=English_United States.1252;LC_NUMERIC=C;LC_TIME=English_United States.1252 attached base packages: [1] tools stats graphics grDevices utils datasets methods [8] base other attached packages: [1] illuminaHumanv2BeadID.db_1.1.2 RSQLite_0.7-1 [3] DBI_0.2-4 AnnotationDbi_1.4.0 [5] Biobase_2.2.0 The probeID/beadID "1940386" has disappeared. Why is this so? is there a mistake in the illuminaHumanv2BeadID package? Is it possible to achieve reproducible results by upgrading to 2.8.0? many thanks julian -- Julian Lee Bioinformatics Specialist Cellular and Molecular Research National Cancer Center Singapore
cancer annotate • 606 views
ADD COMMENTlink modified 10.7 years ago by Marc Carlson7.2k • written 10.7 years ago by Julian Lee140
Answer: BMP4 probe '1940386' missing in illuminaHumanv2BeadID.db (as compared to illumin
0
gravatar for Marc Carlson
10.7 years ago by
Marc Carlson7.2k
United States
Marc Carlson7.2k wrote:
Hi Julian, We are not responsible for the mappings used to tie the illumina IDs onto the gene IDs, for those you probably need to talk to the manufacturers. When we build a new package, all we do is connect those manufacturer provided mappings to the data from public repositories. If the manufacturer changes their mind about how one of those probes should map we have little choice but to believe them. But without even seeing these new manufacturer mappings, I would guess that there is probably nothing wrong with this package. It is (unfortunately) fairly common for manufacturers of microarrays to decide that a probe does not really measure what they originally thought it measured. This is part of why we rebuild all these packages every six months. We are trying our best to give you the most current/accurate picture possible. If you have doubts about the correct mapping of that probe, then please check with the manufacturer to see what they claim their platform measures. If there are any discrepancies in the package from this, then please let me know immediately. Marc Julian Lee wrote: > Hi, > > may i know the differences between the 2 packages and why is this so. I have a gene of interest on the Illumina platform and have been using the IlluminaHumanv2ProbeID.db package to annotate it, but things have changed when i moved to R.2.8.0 on illuminaHumanv2BeadID.db package. > > I'll illustrate it by an example > > Gene of interest - BMP4 > > R.2.7.1 > illuminaHumanv2ProbeID.db package > > >> bmp4_p<-as.character(unlist(mget('BMP4',revmap(illuminaHumanv2Probe IDSYMBOL)))) >> bmp4_p >> > [1] "1850561" "1940386" "3360703" > > >> sessionInfo() >> > R version 2.7.1 (2008-06-23) > i386-pc-mingw32 > > locale: > LC_COLLATE=English_United States.1252;LC_CTYPE=English_United States.1252;LC_MONETARY=English_United States.1252;LC_NUMERIC=C;LC_TIME=English_United States.1252 > > attached base packages: > [1] tools stats graphics grDevices utils datasets methods > [8] base > > other attached packages: > [1] illuminaHumanv2ProbeID.db_1.1.1 AnnotationDbi_1.2.2 > [3] RSQLite_0.6-9 DBI_0.2-4 > > All looks well. However, when i upgraded to R.2.8.0, and installed the illuminaHumanv2BeadID.db package, i encountered these results > > R.2.8.0 > illuminaHumanv2BeadID.db package > > >> bmp4_p<-as.character(unlist(mget('BMP4',revmap(illuminaHumanv2BeadI DSYMBOL)))) >> bmp4_p >> > [1] "1850561" "3360703" > > >> sessionInfo() >> > R version 2.8.0 (2008-10-20) > i386-pc-mingw32 > > locale: > LC_COLLATE=English_United States.1252;LC_CTYPE=English_United States.1252;LC_MONETARY=English_United States.1252;LC_NUMERIC=C;LC_TIME=English_United States.1252 > > attached base packages: > [1] tools stats graphics grDevices utils datasets methods > [8] base > > other attached packages: > [1] illuminaHumanv2BeadID.db_1.1.2 RSQLite_0.7-1 > [3] DBI_0.2-4 AnnotationDbi_1.4.0 > [5] Biobase_2.2.0 > > > The probeID/beadID "1940386" has disappeared. Why is this so? is there a mistake in the illuminaHumanv2BeadID package? > Is it possible to achieve reproducible results by upgrading to 2.8.0? > > many thanks > > julian > > >
ADD COMMENTlink written 10.7 years ago by Marc Carlson7.2k
Julian, I no longer maintain the Illumina annotation packages but I can tell you that I made the illuminaHumanv2ProbeID.db package using annotation provided by Nuno Barbosa-Morais who BLASTed the probe sequences against hg18. I only used probes which had 100% similarity with refseq sequences. You can find the BLAST results at: http://www.compbio.group.cam.ac.uk/Resources/Annotation/ >From what I can see by BLASTing the three probe sequences again against the current build, all three have perfect matches with refseq sequences for BMP4 1940386 AGTAGAGGGATGTGGGTGCCGCTGAGATCAGGCAGTCCTTGAGGATAGAC NM_130851.2, NM_138050.2, NM_001202.3 3360703 GAGACGCAGACGCAGAGGTCGAGCGCAGGCCGAAAGCTGTTCACCGTTTT NM_130851.2 1850561 ACGCCGCTGCTGCTCCGGCTGAGTATCTAGCTTGTCTCCCCGATGGGATT NM_001202.3 Also, all three probes are listed with in the last available Illumina-provided annotation file that I can find: HumanWG-6_V2_0_R2_11223189_A 1940386 NM_130851.1 3360703 NM_130851.1 1850561 NM_001202.2 So, I'm a little confused as to why 1940386 is not showing BMP4 as the symbol name in the new annotation package. What are the other annotation results for this probe? RefSeq? Accession? Marc, do you know what annotation file was used for these packages? Lynn Amon Marc Carlson wrote: > Hi Julian, > > We are not responsible for the mappings used to tie the illumina IDs > onto the gene IDs, for those you probably need to talk to the > manufacturers. When we build a new package, all we do is connect those > manufacturer provided mappings to the data from public repositories. If > the manufacturer changes their mind about how one of those probes should > map we have little choice but to believe them. But without even seeing > these new manufacturer mappings, I would guess that there is probably > nothing wrong with this package. It is (unfortunately) fairly common > for manufacturers of microarrays to decide that a probe does not really > measure what they originally thought it measured. This is part of why > we rebuild all these packages every six months. We are trying our best > to give you the most current/accurate picture possible. > > If you have doubts about the correct mapping of that probe, then please > check with the manufacturer to see what they claim their platform > measures. If there are any discrepancies in the package from this, then > please let me know immediately. > > > Marc > > > > > Julian Lee wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> may i know the differences between the 2 packages and why is this so. I have a gene of interest on the Illumina platform and have been using the IlluminaHumanv2ProbeID.db package to annotate it, but things have changed when i moved to R.2.8.0 on illuminaHumanv2BeadID.db package. >> >> I'll illustrate it by an example >> >> Gene of interest - BMP4 >> >> R.2.7.1 >> illuminaHumanv2ProbeID.db package >> >> >> >>> bmp4_p<-as.character(unlist(mget('BMP4',revmap(illuminaHumanv2Prob eIDSYMBOL)))) >>> bmp4_p >>> >>> >> [1] "1850561" "1940386" "3360703" >> >> >> >>> sessionInfo() >>> >>> >> R version 2.7.1 (2008-06-23) >> i386-pc-mingw32 >> >> locale: >> LC_COLLATE=English_United States.1252;LC_CTYPE=English_United States.1252;LC_MONETARY=English_United States.1252;LC_NUMERIC=C;LC_TIME=English_United States.1252 >> >> attached base packages: >> [1] tools stats graphics grDevices utils datasets methods >> [8] base >> >> other attached packages: >> [1] illuminaHumanv2ProbeID.db_1.1.1 AnnotationDbi_1.2.2 >> [3] RSQLite_0.6-9 DBI_0.2-4 >> >> All looks well. However, when i upgraded to R.2.8.0, and installed the illuminaHumanv2BeadID.db package, i encountered these results >> >> R.2.8.0 >> illuminaHumanv2BeadID.db package >> >> >> >>> bmp4_p<-as.character(unlist(mget('BMP4',revmap(illuminaHumanv2Bead IDSYMBOL)))) >>> bmp4_p >>> >>> >> [1] "1850561" "3360703" >> >> >> >>> sessionInfo() >>> >>> >> R version 2.8.0 (2008-10-20) >> i386-pc-mingw32 >> >> locale: >> LC_COLLATE=English_United States.1252;LC_CTYPE=English_United States.1252;LC_MONETARY=English_United States.1252;LC_NUMERIC=C;LC_TIME=English_United States.1252 >> >> attached base packages: >> [1] tools stats graphics grDevices utils datasets methods >> [8] base >> >> other attached packages: >> [1] illuminaHumanv2BeadID.db_1.1.2 RSQLite_0.7-1 >> [3] DBI_0.2-4 AnnotationDbi_1.4.0 >> [5] Biobase_2.2.0 >> >> >> The probeID/beadID "1940386" has disappeared. Why is this so? is there a mistake in the illuminaHumanv2BeadID package? >> Is it possible to achieve reproducible results by upgrading to 2.8.0? >> >> many thanks >> >> julian >> >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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 >
ADD REPLYlink written 10.7 years ago by Lynn Amon280
Hi Lynn, Thanks for clarifying this! The people who are now directly responsible for this package are Matt Ritchie and Mark Dunning. I am going to CC them into this thread so that they can hopefully clarify for us what is happening with his package. Marc Lynn Amon wrote: > Julian, > I no longer maintain the Illumina annotation packages but I can tell you > that I made the illuminaHumanv2ProbeID.db package using annotation > provided by Nuno Barbosa-Morais who BLASTed the probe sequences against > hg18. I only used probes which had 100% similarity with refseq > sequences. You can find the BLAST results at: > http://www.compbio.group.cam.ac.uk/Resources/Annotation/ > > >From what I can see by BLASTing the three probe sequences again against > the current build, all three have perfect matches with refseq sequences > for BMP4 > 1940386 AGTAGAGGGATGTGGGTGCCGCTGAGATCAGGCAGTCCTTGAGGATAGAC > NM_130851.2, NM_138050.2, NM_001202.3 > 3360703 GAGACGCAGACGCAGAGGTCGAGCGCAGGCCGAAAGCTGTTCACCGTTTT NM_130851.2 > 1850561 ACGCCGCTGCTGCTCCGGCTGAGTATCTAGCTTGTCTCCCCGATGGGATT NM_001202.3 > > Also, all three probes are listed with in the last available > Illumina-provided annotation file that I can find: > HumanWG-6_V2_0_R2_11223189_A > 1940386 NM_130851.1 > 3360703 NM_130851.1 > 1850561 NM_001202.2 > > So, I'm a little confused as to why 1940386 is not showing BMP4 as the > symbol name in the new annotation package. What are the other > annotation results for this probe? RefSeq? Accession? > > Marc, do you know what annotation file was used for these packages? > > Lynn Amon > > > > Marc Carlson wrote: > >> Hi Julian, >> >> We are not responsible for the mappings used to tie the illumina IDs >> onto the gene IDs, for those you probably need to talk to the >> manufacturers. When we build a new package, all we do is connect those >> manufacturer provided mappings to the data from public repositories. If >> the manufacturer changes their mind about how one of those probes should >> map we have little choice but to believe them. But without even seeing >> these new manufacturer mappings, I would guess that there is probably >> nothing wrong with this package. It is (unfortunately) fairly common >> for manufacturers of microarrays to decide that a probe does not really >> measure what they originally thought it measured. This is part of why >> we rebuild all these packages every six months. We are trying our best >> to give you the most current/accurate picture possible. >> >> If you have doubts about the correct mapping of that probe, then please >> check with the manufacturer to see what they claim their platform >> measures. If there are any discrepancies in the package from this, then >> please let me know immediately. >> >> >> Marc >> >> >> >> >> Julian Lee wrote: >> >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> may i know the differences between the 2 packages and why is this so. I have a gene of interest on the Illumina platform and have been using the IlluminaHumanv2ProbeID.db package to annotate it, but things have changed when i moved to R.2.8.0 on illuminaHumanv2BeadID.db package. >>> >>> I'll illustrate it by an example >>> >>> Gene of interest - BMP4 >>> >>> R.2.7.1 >>> illuminaHumanv2ProbeID.db package >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> bmp4_p<-as.character(unlist(mget('BMP4',revmap(illuminaHumanv2Pro beIDSYMBOL)))) >>>> bmp4_p >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> [1] "1850561" "1940386" "3360703" >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> sessionInfo() >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> R version 2.7.1 (2008-06-23) >>> i386-pc-mingw32 >>> >>> locale: >>> LC_COLLATE=English_United States.1252;LC_CTYPE=English_United States.1252;LC_MONETARY=English_United States.1252;LC_NUMERIC=C;LC_TIME=English_United States.1252 >>> >>> attached base packages: >>> [1] tools stats graphics grDevices utils datasets methods >>> [8] base >>> >>> other attached packages: >>> [1] illuminaHumanv2ProbeID.db_1.1.1 AnnotationDbi_1.2.2 >>> [3] RSQLite_0.6-9 DBI_0.2-4 >>> >>> All looks well. However, when i upgraded to R.2.8.0, and installed the illuminaHumanv2BeadID.db package, i encountered these results >>> >>> R.2.8.0 >>> illuminaHumanv2BeadID.db package >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> bmp4_p<-as.character(unlist(mget('BMP4',revmap(illuminaHumanv2Bea dIDSYMBOL)))) >>>> bmp4_p >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> [1] "1850561" "3360703" >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> sessionInfo() >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> R version 2.8.0 (2008-10-20) >>> i386-pc-mingw32 >>> >>> locale: >>> LC_COLLATE=English_United States.1252;LC_CTYPE=English_United States.1252;LC_MONETARY=English_United States.1252;LC_NUMERIC=C;LC_TIME=English_United States.1252 >>> >>> attached base packages: >>> [1] tools stats graphics grDevices utils datasets methods >>> [8] base >>> >>> other attached packages: >>> [1] illuminaHumanv2BeadID.db_1.1.2 RSQLite_0.7-1 >>> [3] DBI_0.2-4 AnnotationDbi_1.4.0 >>> [5] Biobase_2.2.0 >>> >>> >>> The probeID/beadID "1940386" has disappeared. Why is this so? is there a mistake in the illuminaHumanv2BeadID package? >>> Is it possible to achieve reproducible results by upgrading to 2.8.0? >>> >>> many thanks >>> >>> julian >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> > > >
ADD REPLYlink written 10.7 years ago by Marc Carlson7.2k
Hi all, I have taken over the building of these annotation packages and am using the same text files that Lynn linked to. In the source file, all three probe IDs (1940386, 3360703, 1850561) have "good" annotation by our criteria so I am quite puzzled by one probe is missing. My script for creating the annotation packages doesn't do much more than taking the refseq identifiers from the source file and passing to the function makeHUMANCHIP_DB within AnnotationDBI. It's not immediately obvious where the problem occurs, but I will look into it. I can share the script if required. Regards, Mark On Mon, 2008-11-03 at 10:41 -0800, Lynn Amon wrote: > Julian, > I no longer maintain the Illumina annotation packages but I can tell you > that I made the illuminaHumanv2ProbeID.db package using annotation > provided by Nuno Barbosa-Morais who BLASTed the probe sequences against > hg18. I only used probes which had 100% similarity with refseq > sequences. You can find the BLAST results at: > http://www.compbio.group.cam.ac.uk/Resources/Annotation/ > > >From what I can see by BLASTing the three probe sequences again against > the current build, all three have perfect matches with refseq sequences > for BMP4 > 1940386 AGTAGAGGGATGTGGGTGCCGCTGAGATCAGGCAGTCCTTGAGGATAGAC > NM_130851.2, NM_138050.2, NM_001202.3 > 3360703 GAGACGCAGACGCAGAGGTCGAGCGCAGGCCGAAAGCTGTTCACCGTTTT NM_130851.2 > 1850561 ACGCCGCTGCTGCTCCGGCTGAGTATCTAGCTTGTCTCCCCGATGGGATT NM_001202.3 > > Also, all three probes are listed with in the last available > Illumina-provided annotation file that I can find: > HumanWG-6_V2_0_R2_11223189_A > 1940386 NM_130851.1 > 3360703 NM_130851.1 > 1850561 NM_001202.2 > > So, I'm a little confused as to why 1940386 is not showing BMP4 as the > symbol name in the new annotation package. What are the other > annotation results for this probe? RefSeq? Accession? > > Marc, do you know what annotation file was used for these packages? > > Lynn Amon > > > > Marc Carlson wrote: > > Hi Julian, > > > > We are not responsible for the mappings used to tie the illumina IDs > > onto the gene IDs, for those you probably need to talk to the > > manufacturers. When we build a new package, all we do is connect those > > manufacturer provided mappings to the data from public repositories. If > > the manufacturer changes their mind about how one of those probes should > > map we have little choice but to believe them. But without even seeing > > these new manufacturer mappings, I would guess that there is probably > > nothing wrong with this package. It is (unfortunately) fairly common > > for manufacturers of microarrays to decide that a probe does not really > > measure what they originally thought it measured. This is part of why > > we rebuild all these packages every six months. We are trying our best > > to give you the most current/accurate picture possible. > > > > If you have doubts about the correct mapping of that probe, then please > > check with the manufacturer to see what they claim their platform > > measures. If there are any discrepancies in the package from this, then > > please let me know immediately. > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > Julian Lee wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> may i know the differences between the 2 packages and why is this so. I have a gene of interest on the Illumina platform and have been using the IlluminaHumanv2ProbeID.db package to annotate it, but things have changed when i moved to R.2.8.0 on illuminaHumanv2BeadID.db package. > >> > >> I'll illustrate it by an example > >> > >> Gene of interest - BMP4 > >> > >> R.2.7.1 > >> illuminaHumanv2ProbeID.db package > >> > >> > >> > >>> bmp4_p<-as.character(unlist(mget('BMP4',revmap(illuminaHumanv2Pr obeIDSYMBOL)))) > >>> bmp4_p > >>> > >>> > >> [1] "1850561" "1940386" "3360703" > >> > >> > >> > >>> sessionInfo() > >>> > >>> > >> R version 2.7.1 (2008-06-23) > >> i386-pc-mingw32 > >> > >> locale: > >> LC_COLLATE=English_United States.1252;LC_CTYPE=English_United States.1252;LC_MONETARY=English_United States.1252;LC_NUMERIC=C;LC_TIME=English_United States.1252 > >> > >> attached base packages: > >> [1] tools stats graphics grDevices utils datasets methods > >> [8] base > >> > >> other attached packages: > >> [1] illuminaHumanv2ProbeID.db_1.1.1 AnnotationDbi_1.2.2 > >> [3] RSQLite_0.6-9 DBI_0.2-4 > >> > >> All looks well. However, when i upgraded to R.2.8.0, and installed the illuminaHumanv2BeadID.db package, i encountered these results > >> > >> R.2.8.0 > >> illuminaHumanv2BeadID.db package > >> > >> > >> > >>> bmp4_p<-as.character(unlist(mget('BMP4',revmap(illuminaHumanv2Be adIDSYMBOL)))) > >>> bmp4_p > >>> > >>> > >> [1] "1850561" "3360703" > >> > >> > >> > >>> sessionInfo() > >>> > >>> > >> R version 2.8.0 (2008-10-20) > >> i386-pc-mingw32 > >> > >> locale: > >> LC_COLLATE=English_United States.1252;LC_CTYPE=English_United States.1252;LC_MONETARY=English_United States.1252;LC_NUMERIC=C;LC_TIME=English_United States.1252 > >> > >> attached base packages: > >> [1] tools stats graphics grDevices utils datasets methods > >> [8] base > >> > >> other attached packages: > >> [1] illuminaHumanv2BeadID.db_1.1.2 RSQLite_0.7-1 > >> [3] DBI_0.2-4 AnnotationDbi_1.4.0 > >> [5] Biobase_2.2.0 > >> > >> > >> The probeID/beadID "1940386" has disappeared. Why is this so? is there a mistake in the illuminaHumanv2BeadID package? > >> Is it possible to achieve reproducible results by upgrading to 2.8.0? > >> > >> many thanks > >> > >> julian > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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
ADD REPLYlink written 10.7 years ago by Mark Dunning50
Hi Mark, Can I see the source files that you used to map this package? Specifically, what was the ID that was used to tie the now missing probe to the gene BMP4? Sometimes old IDs can be "retired" by the public repositories, so perhaps the ID you were using to connect this probe was itself recently retired? Marc Mark Dunning wrote: > Hi all, > > I have taken over the building of these annotation packages and am using > the same text files that Lynn linked to. In the source file, all three > probe IDs (1940386, 3360703, 1850561) have "good" annotation by our > criteria so I am quite puzzled by one probe is missing. > > My script for creating the annotation packages doesn't do much more than > taking the refseq identifiers from the source file and passing to the > function makeHUMANCHIP_DB within AnnotationDBI. It's not immediately > obvious where the problem occurs, but I will look into it. I can share > the script if required. > > Regards, > > Mark > > > > On Mon, 2008-11-03 at 10:41 -0800, Lynn Amon wrote: > >> Julian, >> I no longer maintain the Illumina annotation packages but I can tell you >> that I made the illuminaHumanv2ProbeID.db package using annotation >> provided by Nuno Barbosa-Morais who BLASTed the probe sequences against >> hg18. I only used probes which had 100% similarity with refseq >> sequences. You can find the BLAST results at: >> http://www.compbio.group.cam.ac.uk/Resources/Annotation/ >> >> >From what I can see by BLASTing the three probe sequences again against >> the current build, all three have perfect matches with refseq sequences >> for BMP4 >> 1940386 AGTAGAGGGATGTGGGTGCCGCTGAGATCAGGCAGTCCTTGAGGATAGAC >> NM_130851.2, NM_138050.2, NM_001202.3 >> 3360703 GAGACGCAGACGCAGAGGTCGAGCGCAGGCCGAAAGCTGTTCACCGTTTT NM_130851.2 >> 1850561 ACGCCGCTGCTGCTCCGGCTGAGTATCTAGCTTGTCTCCCCGATGGGATT NM_001202.3 >> >> Also, all three probes are listed with in the last available >> Illumina-provided annotation file that I can find: >> HumanWG-6_V2_0_R2_11223189_A >> 1940386 NM_130851.1 >> 3360703 NM_130851.1 >> 1850561 NM_001202.2 >> >> So, I'm a little confused as to why 1940386 is not showing BMP4 as the >> symbol name in the new annotation package. What are the other >> annotation results for this probe? RefSeq? Accession? >> >> Marc, do you know what annotation file was used for these packages? >> >> Lynn Amon >> >> >> >> Marc Carlson wrote: >> >>> Hi Julian, >>> >>> We are not responsible for the mappings used to tie the illumina IDs >>> onto the gene IDs, for those you probably need to talk to the >>> manufacturers. When we build a new package, all we do is connect those >>> manufacturer provided mappings to the data from public repositories. If >>> the manufacturer changes their mind about how one of those probes should >>> map we have little choice but to believe them. But without even seeing >>> these new manufacturer mappings, I would guess that there is probably >>> nothing wrong with this package. It is (unfortunately) fairly common >>> for manufacturers of microarrays to decide that a probe does not really >>> measure what they originally thought it measured. This is part of why >>> we rebuild all these packages every six months. We are trying our best >>> to give you the most current/accurate picture possible. >>> >>> If you have doubts about the correct mapping of that probe, then please >>> check with the manufacturer to see what they claim their platform >>> measures. If there are any discrepancies in the package from this, then >>> please let me know immediately. >>> >>> >>> Marc >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Julian Lee wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> may i know the differences between the 2 packages and why is this so. I have a gene of interest on the Illumina platform and have been using the IlluminaHumanv2ProbeID.db package to annotate it, but things have changed when i moved to R.2.8.0 on illuminaHumanv2BeadID.db package. >>>> >>>> I'll illustrate it by an example >>>> >>>> Gene of interest - BMP4 >>>> >>>> R.2.7.1 >>>> illuminaHumanv2ProbeID.db package >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> bmp4_p<-as.character(unlist(mget('BMP4',revmap(illuminaHumanv2Pr obeIDSYMBOL)))) >>>>> bmp4_p >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> [1] "1850561" "1940386" "3360703" >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> sessionInfo() >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> R version 2.7.1 (2008-06-23) >>>> i386-pc-mingw32 >>>> >>>> locale: >>>> LC_COLLATE=English_United States.1252;LC_CTYPE=English_United States.1252;LC_MONETARY=English_United States.1252;LC_NUMERIC=C;LC_TIME=English_United States.1252 >>>> >>>> attached base packages: >>>> [1] tools stats graphics grDevices utils datasets methods >>>> [8] base >>>> >>>> other attached packages: >>>> [1] illuminaHumanv2ProbeID.db_1.1.1 AnnotationDbi_1.2.2 >>>> [3] RSQLite_0.6-9 DBI_0.2-4 >>>> >>>> All looks well. However, when i upgraded to R.2.8.0, and installed the illuminaHumanv2BeadID.db package, i encountered these results >>>> >>>> R.2.8.0 >>>> illuminaHumanv2BeadID.db package >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> bmp4_p<-as.character(unlist(mget('BMP4',revmap(illuminaHumanv2Be adIDSYMBOL)))) >>>>> bmp4_p >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> [1] "1850561" "3360703" >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> sessionInfo() >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> R version 2.8.0 (2008-10-20) >>>> i386-pc-mingw32 >>>> >>>> locale: >>>> LC_COLLATE=English_United States.1252;LC_CTYPE=English_United States.1252;LC_MONETARY=English_United States.1252;LC_NUMERIC=C;LC_TIME=English_United States.1252 >>>> >>>> attached base packages: >>>> [1] tools stats graphics grDevices utils datasets methods >>>> [8] base >>>> >>>> other attached packages: >>>> [1] illuminaHumanv2BeadID.db_1.1.2 RSQLite_0.7-1 >>>> [3] DBI_0.2-4 AnnotationDbi_1.4.0 >>>> [5] Biobase_2.2.0 >>>> >>>> >>>> The probeID/beadID "1940386" has disappeared. Why is this so? is there a mistake in the illuminaHumanv2BeadID package? >>>> Is it possible to achieve reproducible results by upgrading to 2.8.0? >>>> >>>> many thanks >>>> >>>> julian >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> > > >
ADD REPLYlink written 10.7 years ago by Marc Carlson7.2k
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: 138 users visited in the last hour