Limma and negative p-values
2
0
Entering edit mode
Voke AO ▴ 760
@voke-ao-4830
Last seen 10.3 years ago
Hi all, Trying to use limma(code below) to do some DE analysis...and I get negative p-values. Not quite sure where I went wrong here...please help! Thanks. Avoks. gds158dat = getGEO('GDS158',destdir=".") gds158eset = GDS2eSet(gds158dat, do.log2=TRUE) groups= pData(gds158eset)$metabolism groups=as.character(groups) groups[groups=="insulin sensitive"]= "IS" groups[groups=="insulin resistant"]= "IR" f = factor(groups, levels=c("IS","IR")) design_gds158 = model.matrix(~0+f) colnames(design_gds158) = levels(f) cont.matrix = makeContrasts(IR-IS, levels=design_gds158) fit=lmFit(gds158eset, design_gds158) fit2 = contrasts.fit(fit, cont.matrix) fit2 = eBayes(fit2) results = topTable(fit2, adjust ="BH", number = nrow(gds158eset)) sessionInfo() R version 2.14.1 (2011-12-22) Platform: i386-pc-mingw32/i386 (32-bit) locale: [1] LC_COLLATE=English_xxx.1252 LC_CTYPE=English_xxx.1252 [3] LC_MONETARY=xxx.1252 LC_NUMERIC=C [5] LC_TIME=xxx.1252 attached base packages: [1] stats graphics grDevices utils datasets methods base other attached packages: [1] ArrayExpress_1.14.0 GEOquery_2.20.8 limma_3.10.2 [4] XML_3.9-4.1 RCurl_1.91-1.1 bitops_1.0-4.1 [7] puma_2.6.0 mclust_3.4.11 affy_1.32.1 [10] Biobase_2.14.0 loaded via a namespace (and not attached): [1] affyio_1.22.0 BiocInstaller_1.2.1 preprocessCore_1.16.0 [4] tools_2.14.1 zlibbioc_1.0.0
• 1.3k views
ADD COMMENT
0
Entering edit mode
Naomi Altman ★ 6.0k
@naomi-altman-380
Last seen 3.7 years ago
United States
I have posted this several times, but it has been a while so I will do it again. Suppose p=.001 and you have 10000 genes. Then you expect 10 significant genes just by chance. So if you observe 9 or 10 significant genes at this level, your FDR should be 100%. If you observe 11, your FDR should be about 10/11=0.91. Etc. This does not mean that you don't have any significant genes. It means your experiment did not have enough power to detect them. --Naomi At 10:31 AM 3/15/2012, Ovokeraye Achinike-Oduaran wrote: >Hi, > >Excuse the language but I say shady because they all range from >~0.918 - 0.999. > >On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Steve Lianoglou ><mailinglist.honeypot at="" gmail.com=""> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Ovokeraye Achinike-Oduaran > > <ovokeraye at="" gmail.com=""> wrote: > >> Hi all, > >> > >> Sorry...a recall of my previous mail...the p-values are fine(or not) > >> but not negative...the corrected p-values, however, look very shady. > >> Any suggestions there? > > > > Shady? > > > > Need to elaborate, please. > > > > -steve > > -- > > Steve Lianoglou > > Graduate Student: Computational Systems Biology > > | Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center > > | Weill Medical College of Cornell University > > Contact Info: http://cbio.mskcc.org/~lianos/contact > >_______________________________________________ >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
ADD COMMENT
0
Entering edit mode
Thanks Steve and Naomi. -Avoks On 15 Mar 2012, at 5:37 PM, Naomi Altman <naomi at="" stat.psu.edu=""> wrote: > I have posted this several times, but it has been a while so I will do it again. > > Suppose p=.001 and you have 10000 genes. Then you expect 10 significant genes just by chance. So if you observe 9 or 10 significant genes at this level, your FDR should be 100%. If you observe 11, your FDR should be about 10/11=0.91. Etc. > > This does not mean that you don't have any significant genes. It means your experiment did not have enough power to detect them. > > --Naomi > > > At 10:31 AM 3/15/2012, Ovokeraye Achinike-Oduaran wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Excuse the language but I say shady because they all range from ~0.918 - 0.999. >> >> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Steve Lianoglou >> <mailinglist.honeypot at="" gmail.com=""> wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Ovokeraye Achinike-Oduaran >> > <ovokeraye at="" gmail.com=""> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> >> >> Sorry...a recall of my previous mail...the p-values are fine(or not) >> >> but not negative...the corrected p-values, however, look very shady. >> >> Any suggestions there? >> > >> > Shady? >> > >> > Need to elaborate, please. >> > >> > -steve >> > -- >> > Steve Lianoglou >> > Graduate Student: Computational Systems Biology >> > | Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center >> > | Weill Medical College of Cornell University >> > Contact Info: http://cbio.mskcc.org/~lianos/contact >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > >
ADD REPLY
0
Entering edit mode
Voke AO ▴ 760
@voke-ao-4830
Last seen 10.3 years ago
Hi all, Sorry...a recall of my previous mail...the p-values are fine(or not) but not negative...the corrected p-values, however, look very shady. Any suggestions there? Thanks On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Ovokeraye Achinike-Oduaran <ovokeraye at="" gmail.com=""> wrote: > Hi all, > > Trying to use limma(code below) to do some DE analysis...and I get > negative p-values. Not quite sure where I went wrong here...please > help! > > Thanks. > > Avoks. > > gds158dat = getGEO('GDS158',destdir=".") > gds158eset = GDS2eSet(gds158dat, do.log2=TRUE) > groups= pData(gds158eset)$metabolism > groups=as.character(groups) > groups[groups=="insulin sensitive"]= "IS" > groups[groups=="insulin resistant"]= "IR" > f = factor(groups, levels=c("IS","IR")) > design_gds158 = model.matrix(~0+f) > colnames(design_gds158) = levels(f) > cont.matrix = makeContrasts(IR-IS, levels=design_gds158) > fit=lmFit(gds158eset, design_gds158) > fit2 = contrasts.fit(fit, cont.matrix) > fit2 = eBayes(fit2) > results = topTable(fit2, adjust ="BH", number = nrow(gds158eset)) > > sessionInfo() > R version 2.14.1 (2011-12-22) > Platform: i386-pc-mingw32/i386 (32-bit) > > locale: > [1] LC_COLLATE=English_xxx.1252 ?LC_CTYPE=English_xxx.1252 > [3] LC_MONETARY=xxx.1252 LC_NUMERIC=C > [5] LC_TIME=xxx.1252 > > attached base packages: > [1] stats ? ? graphics ?grDevices utils ? ? datasets ?methods ? base > > other attached packages: > ?[1] ArrayExpress_1.14.0 GEOquery_2.20.8 ? ? limma_3.10.2 > ?[4] XML_3.9-4.1 ? ? ? ? RCurl_1.91-1.1 ? ? ?bitops_1.0-4.1 > ?[7] puma_2.6.0 ? ? ? ? ?mclust_3.4.11 ? ? ? affy_1.32.1 > [10] Biobase_2.14.0 > > loaded via a namespace (and not attached): > [1] affyio_1.22.0 ? ? ? ? BiocInstaller_1.2.1 ? preprocessCore_1.16.0 > [4] tools_2.14.1 ? ? ? ? ?zlibbioc_1.0.0
ADD COMMENT
0
Entering edit mode
Hi, On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Ovokeraye Achinike-Oduaran <ovokeraye at="" gmail.com=""> wrote: > Hi all, > > Sorry...a recall of my previous mail...the p-values are fine(or not) > but not negative...the corrected p-values, however, look very shady. > Any suggestions there? Shady? Need to elaborate, please. -steve -- Steve Lianoglou Graduate Student: Computational Systems Biology ?| Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center ?| Weill Medical College of Cornell University Contact Info: http://cbio.mskcc.org/~lianos/contact
ADD REPLY
0
Entering edit mode
Hi, Excuse the language but I say shady because they all range from ~0.918 - 0.999. On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Steve Lianoglou <mailinglist.honeypot at="" gmail.com=""> wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Ovokeraye Achinike-Oduaran > <ovokeraye at="" gmail.com=""> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Sorry...a recall of my previous mail...the p-values are fine(or not) >> but not negative...the corrected p-values, however, look very shady. >> Any suggestions there? > > Shady? > > Need to elaborate, please. > > -steve > -- > Steve Lianoglou > Graduate Student: Computational Systems Biology > ?| Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center > ?| Weill Medical College of Cornell University > Contact Info: http://cbio.mskcc.org/~lianos/contact
ADD REPLY
0
Entering edit mode
Hi On 03/15/2012 03:31 PM, Ovokeraye Achinike-Oduaran wrote: > Excuse the language but I say shady because they all range from ~0.918 - 0.999. Nothing "shady" with this. It just indicates that you do not have any significant calls in your data. In other words: There is likely too much noise and/or too little signal. Simon
ADD REPLY

Login before adding your answer.

Traffic: 440 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