Hi Everyone,
I am analyzing a RNAseq experiment with two groups each having two
replicates. One out of 4 libraries have only half as much reads
mapping to
genome.
Lib Fe+.1 has only 4 million reads while other are 9 million +. But
still
the norm.factors are not much different. With my naive understanding i
expect Fe+.1 to be very different from others. I would like to know if
what
I see is okay?
> oldsetDGE <- calcNormFactors(oldsetDGE)
> oldsetDGE$samples
group lib.size norm.factors
fe-.1 2 9664343 0.9865411
fe-.2 2 11248827 1.0812947
fe+.1 1 4194124 0.9662389
fe+.2 1 9963626 0.9701888
Thanks very much,
Gowthaman
--
Gowthaman
Bioinformatics Systems Programmer.
SBRI, 307 West lake Ave N Suite 500
Seattle, WA. 98109-5219
Phone : LAB 206-256-7188 (direct).
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
Was meaning to say the following as a part of first email:
I understand, norm.factor calculated by edgeR considers information
more
than library size. I understand the issue of limited "real estate" is
factored in as well. So, I assume, what is see may be okay. But, still
would like to get some second opinion for experts.
Thanks again,
Gowthaman
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 4:07 PM, gowtham <ragowthaman@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
> I am analyzing a RNAseq experiment with two groups each having two
> replicates. One out of 4 libraries have only half as much reads
mapping to
> genome.
>
> Lib Fe+.1 has only 4 million reads while other are 9 million +. But
still
> the norm.factors are not much different. With my naive understanding
i
> expect Fe+.1 to be very different from others. I would like to know
if what
> I see is okay?
>
> > oldsetDGE <- calcNormFactors(oldsetDGE)
> > oldsetDGE$samples
> group lib.size norm.factors
> fe-.1 2 9664343 0.9865411
> fe-.2 2 11248827 1.0812947
> fe+.1 1 4194124 0.9662389
> fe+.2 1 9963626 0.9701888
>
>
> Thanks very much,
> Gowthaman
> --
> Gowthaman
>
> Bioinformatics Systems Programmer.
> SBRI, 307 West lake Ave N Suite 500
> Seattle, WA. 98109-5219
> Phone : LAB 206-256-7188 (direct).
>
--
Gowthaman
Bioinformatics Systems Programmer.
SBRI, 307 West lake Ave N Suite 500
Seattle, WA. 98109-5219
Phone : LAB 206-256-7188 (direct).
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
Sorry about repeated mailing: I have attached a smear plot of the data
incase that helps anyone attempting to answer my doubt.....
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 4:07 PM, gowtham <ragowthaman at="" gmail.com="">
wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
> I am analyzing a RNAseq experiment with two groups each having two
> replicates. One out of 4 libraries have only half as much reads
mapping to
> genome.
>
> Lib Fe+.1 has only 4 million reads while other are 9 million +. But
still
> the norm.factors are not much different. With my naive understanding
i
> expect Fe+.1 to be very different from others. I would like to know
if what
> I see is okay?
>
> > oldsetDGE <- calcNormFactors(oldsetDGE)
> > oldsetDGE$samples
> group lib.size norm.factors
> fe-.1 2 9664343 0.9865411
> fe-.2 2 11248827 1.0812947
> fe+.1 1 4194124 0.9662389
> fe+.2 1 9963626 0.9701888
>
>
> Thanks very much,
> Gowthaman
> --
> Gowthaman
>
> Bioinformatics Systems Programmer.
> SBRI, 307 West lake Ave N Suite 500
> Seattle, WA. 98109-5219
> Phone : LAB 206-256-7188 (direct).
>
--
Gowthaman
Bioinformatics Systems Programmer.
SBRI, 307 West lake Ave N Suite 500
Seattle, WA. 98109-5219
Phone : LAB 206-256-7188 (direct).
Hi Gowthaman
Your output looks fine. What is more important is that library size is
taken into account as an offset later on when you fit the glm. See
help(glmFit).
Cheers,
Belinda
-----Original Message-----
From: bioconductor-bounces@r-project.org [mailto:bioconductor-
bounces@r-project.org] On Behalf Of gowtham
Sent: Friday, 22 June 2012 9:40 AM
To: bioconductor
Subject: Re: [BioC] edgeR: calcNormFactors question
Sorry about repeated mailing: I have attached a smear plot of the data
incase that helps anyone attempting to answer my doubt.....
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 4:07 PM, gowtham <ragowthaman at="" gmail.com="">
wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
> I am analyzing a RNAseq experiment with two groups each having two
> replicates. One out of 4 libraries have only half as much reads
> mapping to genome.
>
> Lib Fe+.1 has only 4 million reads while other are 9 million +. But
> still the norm.factors are not much different. With my naive
> understanding i expect Fe+.1 to be very different from others. I
would
> like to know if what I see is okay?
>
> > oldsetDGE <- calcNormFactors(oldsetDGE) oldsetDGE$samples
> group lib.size norm.factors
> fe-.1 2 9664343 0.9865411
> fe-.2 2 11248827 1.0812947
> fe+.1 1 4194124 0.9662389
> fe+.2 1 9963626 0.9701888
>
>
> Thanks very much,
> Gowthaman
> --
> Gowthaman
>
> Bioinformatics Systems Programmer.
> SBRI, 307 West lake Ave N Suite 500
> Seattle, WA. 98109-5219
> Phone : LAB 206-256-7188 (direct).
>
--
Gowthaman
Bioinformatics Systems Programmer.
SBRI, 307 West lake Ave N Suite 500
Seattle, WA. 98109-5219
Phone : LAB 206-256-7188 (direct).
______________________________________________________________________
The information in this email is confidential and
intend...{{dropped:6}}
Thanks very much Belinda. That is comforting.
My DGEList object has library sizes added to it. Do I still need to
supply
a numeric vector with library sizes while fiting glm? Or is it
automatically pulled from DGEList object?
Reading help, i understand its automatic. Please advice me if I am
wrong.
" If y is a DGEList object then the default for lib.size is the
product of
the library sizes and the normalization factors (in the samples slot
of the
object). "
Thanks,
Gowthaman
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Belinda Phipson
<phipson@wehi.edu.au>wrote:
> Hi Gowthaman
>
> Your output looks fine. What is more important is that library size
is
> taken into account as an offset later on when you fit the glm. See
> help(glmFit).
>
> Cheers,
> Belinda
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bioconductor-bounces@r-project.org [mailto:
> bioconductor-bounces@r-project.org] On Behalf Of gowtham
> Sent: Friday, 22 June 2012 9:40 AM
> To: bioconductor
> Subject: Re: [BioC] edgeR: calcNormFactors question
>
> Sorry about repeated mailing: I have attached a smear plot of the
data
> incase that helps anyone attempting to answer my doubt.....
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 4:07 PM, gowtham <ragowthaman@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> > Hi Everyone,
> > I am analyzing a RNAseq experiment with two groups each having two
> > replicates. One out of 4 libraries have only half as much reads
> > mapping to genome.
> >
> > Lib Fe+.1 has only 4 million reads while other are 9 million +.
But
> > still the norm.factors are not much different. With my naive
> > understanding i expect Fe+.1 to be very different from others. I
would
> > like to know if what I see is okay?
> >
> > > oldsetDGE <- calcNormFactors(oldsetDGE) oldsetDGE$samples
> > group lib.size norm.factors
> > fe-.1 2 9664343 0.9865411
> > fe-.2 2 11248827 1.0812947
> > fe+.1 1 4194124 0.9662389
> > fe+.2 1 9963626 0.9701888
> >
> >
> > Thanks very much,
> > Gowthaman
> > --
> > Gowthaman
> >
> > Bioinformatics Systems Programmer.
> > SBRI, 307 West lake Ave N Suite 500
> > Seattle, WA. 98109-5219
> > Phone : LAB 206-256-7188 (direct).
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Gowthaman
>
> Bioinformatics Systems Programmer.
> SBRI, 307 West lake Ave N Suite 500
> Seattle, WA. 98109-5219
> Phone : LAB 206-256-7188 (direct).
>
>
>
______________________________________________________________________
> The information in this email is confidential and
inte...{{dropped:20}}
Hi Belinda,
I think, i am bit confused now. The help document suggest, i should
use
only one of "offset" and "lib.size". Seems like both of them take the
library size into account. And sounds like "offset" has a preference
when
both are supplied.
So, my question is do I have to explicitly ask for one or other? And
do I
have to explicitly give it a value?
fit <- glmFit(d, design)
OR
fit <- glmFit(d, design, offset=NULL)
OR
fit <- glmFit(d, design, lib.size=c(9664343, 11248827, 4194124,
9963626))
should I supply some values for "lib.sizes". Note, my DGEList already
has
library size information in it.
Once again thanks for your answer and pointer to glmFit.
Gowthaman
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 2:18 AM, gowtham <ragowthaman@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Thanks very much Belinda. That is comforting.
>
> My DGEList object has library sizes added to it. Do I still need to
supply
> a numeric vector with library sizes while fiting glm? Or is it
> automatically pulled from DGEList object?
>
> Reading help, i understand its automatic. Please advice me if I am
wrong.
> " If y is a DGEList object then the default for lib.size is the
product
> of the library sizes and the normalization factors (in the samples
slot
> of the object). "
>
> Thanks,
> Gowthaman
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Belinda Phipson
<phipson@wehi.edu.au>wrote:
>
>> Hi Gowthaman
>>
>> Your output looks fine. What is more important is that library size
is
>> taken into account as an offset later on when you fit the glm. See
>> help(glmFit).
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Belinda
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: bioconductor-bounces@r-project.org [mailto:
>> bioconductor-bounces@r-project.org] On Behalf Of gowtham
>> Sent: Friday, 22 June 2012 9:40 AM
>> To: bioconductor
>> Subject: Re: [BioC] edgeR: calcNormFactors question
>>
>> Sorry about repeated mailing: I have attached a smear plot of the
data
>> incase that helps anyone attempting to answer my doubt.....
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 4:07 PM, gowtham <ragowthaman@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Everyone,
>> > I am analyzing a RNAseq experiment with two groups each having
two
>> > replicates. One out of 4 libraries have only half as much reads
>> > mapping to genome.
>> >
>> > Lib Fe+.1 has only 4 million reads while other are 9 million +.
But
>> > still the norm.factors are not much different. With my naive
>> > understanding i expect Fe+.1 to be very different from others. I
would
>> > like to know if what I see is okay?
>> >
>> > > oldsetDGE <- calcNormFactors(oldsetDGE) oldsetDGE$samples
>> > group lib.size norm.factors
>> > fe-.1 2 9664343 0.9865411
>> > fe-.2 2 11248827 1.0812947
>> > fe+.1 1 4194124 0.9662389
>> > fe+.2 1 9963626 0.9701888
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks very much,
>> > Gowthaman
>> > --
>> > Gowthaman
>> >
>> > Bioinformatics Systems Programmer.
>> > SBRI, 307 West lake Ave N Suite 500
>> > Seattle, WA. 98109-5219
>> > Phone : LAB 206-256-7188 (direct).
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Gowthaman
>>
>> Bioinformatics Systems Programmer.
>> SBRI, 307 West lake Ave N Suite 500
>> Seattle, WA. 98109-5219
>> Phone : LAB 206-256-7188 (direct).
>>
>>
>>
______________________________________________________________________
>> The information in this email is confidential and intended solely
for the
>> addressee.
>> You must not disclose, forward, print or use it without the
permission of
>> the sender.
>>
______________________________________________________________________
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Gowthaman
>
> Bioinformatics Systems Programmer.
> SBRI, 307 West lake Ave N Suite 500
> Seattle, WA. 98109-5219
> Phone : LAB 206-256-7188 (direct).
>
--
Gowthaman
Bioinformatics Systems Programmer.
SBRI, 307 West lake Ave N Suite 500
Seattle, WA. 98109-5219
Phone : LAB 206-256-7188 (direct).
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
Hi Gowthaman,
You shouldn't manually specify the offset in glmFit(), unless you have
a specific need to. Short answer, you should use:
fit <- glmFit(d, design)
>>>> Lib Fe+.1 has only 4 million reads while other are 9 million +.
But
>>>> still the norm.factors are not much different. With my naive
>>>> understanding i expect Fe+.1 to be very different from others. I
would
>>>> like to know if what I see is okay?
This is ok, since the offset used in the downstream modeling is
actually the product of the lib.size and norm.factors columns.
Best,
Mark
----------
Prof. Dr. Mark Robinson
Bioinformatics
Institute of Molecular Life Sciences
University of Zurich
Winterthurerstrasse 190
8057 Zurich
Switzerland
v: +41 44 635 4848
f: +41 44 635 6898
e: mark.robinson at imls.uzh.ch
o: Y11-J-16
w: http://tiny.cc/mrobin
----------
http://www.fgcz.ch/Bioconductor2012
On 22.06.2012, at 11:31, gowtham wrote:
> Hi Belinda,
> I think, i am bit confused now. The help document suggest, i should
use
> only one of "offset" and "lib.size". Seems like both of them take
the
> library size into account. And sounds like "offset" has a preference
when
> both are supplied.
>
> So, my question is do I have to explicitly ask for one or other? And
do I
> have to explicitly give it a value?
>
>
> fit <- glmFit(d, design)
>
> OR
>
>
> fit <- glmFit(d, design, offset=NULL)
>
> OR
>
> fit <- glmFit(d, design, lib.size=c(9664343, 11248827, 4194124,
9963626))
>
> should I supply some values for "lib.sizes". Note, my DGEList
already has
> library size information in it.
>
>
> Once again thanks for your answer and pointer to glmFit.
> Gowthaman
>
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 2:18 AM, gowtham <ragowthaman at="" gmail.com="">
wrote:
>
>> Thanks very much Belinda. That is comforting.
>>
>> My DGEList object has library sizes added to it. Do I still need to
supply
>> a numeric vector with library sizes while fiting glm? Or is it
>> automatically pulled from DGEList object?
>>
>> Reading help, i understand its automatic. Please advice me if I am
wrong.
>> " If y is a DGEList object then the default for lib.size is the
product
>> of the library sizes and the normalization factors (in the samples
slot
>> of the object). "
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Gowthaman
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Belinda Phipson <phipson at="" wehi.edu.au="">wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Gowthaman
>>>
>>> Your output looks fine. What is more important is that library
size is
>>> taken into account as an offset later on when you fit the glm. See
>>> help(glmFit).
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Belinda
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: bioconductor-bounces at r-project.org [mailto:
>>> bioconductor-bounces at r-project.org] On Behalf Of gowtham
>>> Sent: Friday, 22 June 2012 9:40 AM
>>> To: bioconductor
>>> Subject: Re: [BioC] edgeR: calcNormFactors question
>>>
>>> Sorry about repeated mailing: I have attached a smear plot of the
data
>>> incase that helps anyone attempting to answer my doubt.....
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 4:07 PM, gowtham <ragowthaman at="" gmail.com=""> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Everyone,
>>>> I am analyzing a RNAseq experiment with two groups each having
two
>>>> replicates. One out of 4 libraries have only half as much reads
>>>> mapping to genome.
>>>>
>>>> Lib Fe+.1 has only 4 million reads while other are 9 million +.
But
>>>> still the norm.factors are not much different. With my naive
>>>> understanding i expect Fe+.1 to be very different from others. I
would
>>>> like to know if what I see is okay?
>>>>
>>>>> oldsetDGE <- calcNormFactors(oldsetDGE) oldsetDGE$samples
>>>> group lib.size norm.factors
>>>> fe-.1 2 9664343 0.9865411
>>>> fe-.2 2 11248827 1.0812947
>>>> fe+.1 1 4194124 0.9662389
>>>> fe+.2 1 9963626 0.9701888
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks very much,
>>>> Gowthaman
>>>> --
>>>> Gowthaman
>>>>
>>>> Bioinformatics Systems Programmer.
>>>> SBRI, 307 West lake Ave N Suite 500
>>>> Seattle, WA. 98109-5219
>>>> Phone : LAB 206-256-7188 (direct).
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Gowthaman
>>>
>>> Bioinformatics Systems Programmer.
>>> SBRI, 307 West lake Ave N Suite 500
>>> Seattle, WA. 98109-5219
>>> Phone : LAB 206-256-7188 (direct).
>>>
>>>
>>>
______________________________________________________________________
>>> The information in this email is confidential and intended solely
for the
>>> addressee.
>>> You must not disclose, forward, print or use it without the
permission of
>>> the sender.
>>>
______________________________________________________________________
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Gowthaman
>>
>> Bioinformatics Systems Programmer.
>> SBRI, 307 West lake Ave N Suite 500
>> Seattle, WA. 98109-5219
>> Phone : LAB 206-256-7188 (direct).
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Gowthaman
>
> Bioinformatics Systems Programmer.
> SBRI, 307 West lake Ave N Suite 500
> Seattle, WA. 98109-5219
> Phone : LAB 206-256-7188 (direct).
>
> [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
Thats fantastic. It feels good when I understand whats happening under
the
hood.
Thanks so much Mark.
Gowthaman
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 2:50 AM, Mark Robinson
<mark.robinson@imls.uzh.ch>wrote:
> Hi Gowthaman,
>
> You shouldn't manually specify the offset in glmFit(), unless you
have a
> specific need to. Short answer, you should use:
>
> fit <- glmFit(d, design)
>
>
> >>>> Lib Fe+.1 has only 4 million reads while other are 9 million +.
But
> >>>> still the norm.factors are not much different. With my naive
> >>>> understanding i expect Fe+.1 to be very different from others.
I would
> >>>> like to know if what I see is okay?
>
> This is ok, since the offset used in the downstream modeling is
actually
> the product of the lib.size and norm.factors columns.
>
> Best,
> Mark
>
> ----------
> Prof. Dr. Mark Robinson
> Bioinformatics
> Institute of Molecular Life Sciences
> University of Zurich
> Winterthurerstrasse 190
> 8057 Zurich
> Switzerland
>
> v: +41 44 635 4848
> f: +41 44 635 6898
> e: mark.robinson@imls.uzh.ch
> o: Y11-J-16
> w: http://tiny.cc/mrobin
>
> ----------
> http://www.fgcz.ch/Bioconductor2012
>
> On 22.06.2012, at 11:31, gowtham wrote:
>
> > Hi Belinda,
> > I think, i am bit confused now. The help document suggest, i
should use
> > only one of "offset" and "lib.size". Seems like both of them take
the
> > library size into account. And sounds like "offset" has a
preference when
> > both are supplied.
> >
> > So, my question is do I have to explicitly ask for one or other?
And do I
> > have to explicitly give it a value?
> >
> >
> > fit <- glmFit(d, design)
> >
> > OR
> >
> >
> > fit <- glmFit(d, design, offset=NULL)
> >
> > OR
> >
> > fit <- glmFit(d, design, lib.size=c(9664343, 11248827, 4194124,
9963626))
> >
> > should I supply some values for "lib.sizes". Note, my DGEList
already has
> > library size information in it.
> >
> >
> > Once again thanks for your answer and pointer to glmFit.
> > Gowthaman
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 2:18 AM, gowtham <ragowthaman@gmail.com>
wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks very much Belinda. That is comforting.
> >>
> >> My DGEList object has library sizes added to it. Do I still need
to
> supply
> >> a numeric vector with library sizes while fiting glm? Or is it
> >> automatically pulled from DGEList object?
> >>
> >> Reading help, i understand its automatic. Please advice me if I
am
> wrong.
> >> " If y is a DGEList object then the default for lib.size is the
product
> >> of the library sizes and the normalization factors (in the
samples slot
> >> of the object). "
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Gowthaman
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Belinda Phipson
<phipson@wehi.edu.au> >wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Gowthaman
> >>>
> >>> Your output looks fine. What is more important is that library
size is
> >>> taken into account as an offset later on when you fit the glm.
See
> >>> help(glmFit).
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Belinda
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: bioconductor-bounces@r-project.org [mailto:
> >>> bioconductor-bounces@r-project.org] On Behalf Of gowtham
> >>> Sent: Friday, 22 June 2012 9:40 AM
> >>> To: bioconductor
> >>> Subject: Re: [BioC] edgeR: calcNormFactors question
> >>>
> >>> Sorry about repeated mailing: I have attached a smear plot of
the data
> >>> incase that helps anyone attempting to answer my doubt.....
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 4:07 PM, gowtham <ragowthaman@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi Everyone,
> >>>> I am analyzing a RNAseq experiment with two groups each having
two
> >>>> replicates. One out of 4 libraries have only half as much reads
> >>>> mapping to genome.
> >>>>
> >>>> Lib Fe+.1 has only 4 million reads while other are 9 million +.
But
> >>>> still the norm.factors are not much different. With my naive
> >>>> understanding i expect Fe+.1 to be very different from others.
I would
> >>>> like to know if what I see is okay?
> >>>>
> >>>>> oldsetDGE <- calcNormFactors(oldsetDGE) oldsetDGE$samples
> >>>> group lib.size norm.factors
> >>>> fe-.1 2 9664343 0.9865411
> >>>> fe-.2 2 11248827 1.0812947
> >>>> fe+.1 1 4194124 0.9662389
> >>>> fe+.2 1 9963626 0.9701888
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks very much,
> >>>> Gowthaman
> >>>> --
> >>>> Gowthaman
> >>>>
> >>>> Bioinformatics Systems Programmer.
> >>>> SBRI, 307 West lake Ave N Suite 500
> >>>> Seattle, WA. 98109-5219
> >>>> Phone : LAB 206-256-7188 (direct).
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Gowthaman
> >>>
> >>> Bioinformatics Systems Programmer.
> >>> SBRI, 307 West lake Ave N Suite 500
> >>> Seattle, WA. 98109-5219
> >>> Phone : LAB 206-256-7188 (direct).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
______________________________________________________________________
> >>> The information in this email is confidential and intended
solely for
> the
> >>> addressee.
> >>> You must not disclose, forward, print or use it without the
permission
> of
> >>> the sender.
> >>>
______________________________________________________________________
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Gowthaman
> >>
> >> Bioinformatics Systems Programmer.
> >> SBRI, 307 West lake Ave N Suite 500
> >> Seattle, WA. 98109-5219
> >> Phone : LAB 206-256-7188 (direct).
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Gowthaman
> >
> > Bioinformatics Systems Programmer.
> > SBRI, 307 West lake Ave N Suite 500
> > Seattle, WA. 98109-5219
> > Phone : LAB 206-256-7188 (direct).
> >
> > [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Bioconductor mailing list
> > Bioconductor@r-project.org
> > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioconductor
> > Search the archives:
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.science.biology.informatics.conductor
>
>
--
Gowthaman
Bioinformatics Systems Programmer.
SBRI, 307 West lake Ave N Suite 500
Seattle, WA. 98109-5219
Phone : LAB 206-256-7188 (direct).
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
