Affymetrix internal control up-regulated, is anything wrong?
1
0
Entering edit mode
Guest User ★ 13k
@guest-user-4897
Last seen 9.6 years ago
I am a very beginner with array data analysis. I have 3 groups CTR and TREATMENT1 and TREATMENT2. I used a very simple design to perform the 3 comparisons, but I found that 2 out 3 Affymetric probesets for actin beta resulted up-regulated in the CTR condition. All the other probsets for actin beta don't significantly change. Is that normal? could it be a sign of something wrong either during the hybridization or during the analysis? Thanks -- output of sessionInfo(): eset = exprs(expr)[, c(1:18)] designM = model.matrix(~ 0 + factor(c("C", "C", "C", "C", "C", "C", "T1", "T1", "T1", "T1", "T1", "T1", "T2", "T2", "T2", "T2", "T2", "T2"), levels = c("C", "T1", "T2"))) colnames(designM) = c("C", "T1", "T2") fit <- lmFit(eset, designM) contrast.matrix <- makeContrasts(C-T1, C-T2, T1-T2, levels = designM) fit2 <- contrasts.fit(fit, contrast.matrix) fit2 <- eBayes(fit2) -- Sent via the guest posting facility at bioconductor.org.
• 742 views
ADD COMMENT
0
Entering edit mode
@james-w-macdonald-5106
Last seen 8 hours ago
United States
Hi Michele, On 2/13/2012 7:51 PM, Michele Bellesi [guest] wrote: > I am a very beginner with array data analysis. > I have 3 groups CTR and TREATMENT1 and TREATMENT2. I used a very simple design to perform the 3 comparisons, but I found that 2 out 3 Affymetric probesets for actin beta resulted up-regulated in the CTR condition. All the other probsets for actin beta don't significantly change. > Is that normal? could it be a sign of something wrong either during the hybridization or during the analysis? It's hard to say, particularly without access to the data. The usual assumption is that beta actin is constitutively up-regulated, and never changes expression. I have no idea if this is true, and have always harbored doubts. If these were my data to analyze, I would be looking at the fold change difference (are the differences statistically significant, but not likely to be biologically meaningful?), as well as what the probesets are measuring (is it possible that they are picking up transcript variants?). Anyway, you will likely need to delve deeper into your data to see exactly what these differences really might mean. Best, Jim > Thanks > > -- output of sessionInfo(): > > eset = exprs(expr)[, c(1:18)] > > designM = model.matrix(~ 0 + factor(c("C", "C", "C", "C", "C", "C", "T1", "T1", "T1", "T1", "T1", "T1", "T2", "T2", "T2", "T2", "T2", "T2"), levels = c("C", "T1", "T2"))) > colnames(designM) = c("C", "T1", "T2") > fit<- lmFit(eset, designM) > contrast.matrix<- makeContrasts(C-T1, C-T2, T1-T2, levels = designM) > > fit2<- contrasts.fit(fit, contrast.matrix) > fit2<- eBayes(fit2) > > -- > Sent via the guest posting facility at bioconductor.org. > > _______________________________________________ > Bioconductor mailing list > Bioconductor at r-project.org > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioconductor > Search the archives: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.science.biology.informatics.conductor -- James W. MacDonald, M.S. Biostatistician University of Washington Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences 4225 Roosevelt Way NE, # 100 Seattle WA 98105-6099
ADD COMMENT

Login before adding your answer.

Traffic: 942 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