genefilter vs limma - many probes filtered
2
0
Entering edit mode
Guest User ★ 12k
@guest-user-4897
Last seen 8.1 years ago
Dear list, I've followed the tips regarding gene filtering at http://www.biocondu ctor.org/packages/release/bioc/vignettes/genefilter/inst/doc/independe nt_filtering.pdf when analyzing GEO data (GSE48060). In this case most probes would pass the tests (for adj.p. < .05) if I filter out roughly 70% of them based on variance, which will triple the number of positives compared to not filtering at all. (related graphic: http://i.imgur.com/RuuvRIo.png) Should I be concerned about such extensive filtering? Does it affect further analysis with limma and introduce bias? If it's a problem, what are the available solutions or diagnostics? Thanks for your help! Best regards, Marcin -- output of sessionInfo(): R version 3.1.0 (2014-04-10) Platform: x86_64-w64-mingw32/x64 (64-bit) locale: [1] LC_COLLATE=Polish_Poland.1250 LC_CTYPE=Polish_Poland.1250 LC_MONETARY=Polish_Poland.1250 LC_NUMERIC=C [5] LC_TIME=Polish_Poland.1250 attached base packages: [1] parallel stats graphics grDevices utils datasets methods base other attached packages: [1] RColorBrewer_1.0-5 hgu133plus2.db_2.14.0 org.Hs.eg.db_2.14.0 RSQLite_0.11.4 DBI_0.2-7 AnnotationDbi_1.26.0 [7] GenomeInfoDb_1.0.2 genefilter_1.46.1 matrixStats_0.8.14 limma_3.20.3 GEOquery_2.30.0 Biobase_2.24.0 [13] BiocGenerics_0.10.0 loaded via a namespace (and not attached): [1] annotate_1.42.0 IRanges_1.22.6 R.methodsS3_1.6.1 RCurl_1.95-4.1 splines_3.1.0 stats4_3.1.0 survival_2.37-7 tools_3.1.0 [9] XML_3.98-1.1 xtable_1.7-3 -- Sent via the guest posting facility at bioconductor.org.
hgu133plus2 limma hgu133plus2 limma • 1.8k views
ADD COMMENT
0
Entering edit mode
@ryan-c-thompson-5618
Last seen 2.1 years ago
Scripps Research, La Jolla, CA
Hi Marcin, I believe that performing variance filtering is not compatible with the empirical Bayes methods employed in limma. The point of limma is to compute a moderated estimate of each gene's variance by using the average variance across all genes as a prior estimate. If you filter out genes based on their variance, then you will bias that prior estimate, and this bias will propagate to the posterior estimates. For example, if you filter out high-variance genes, limma will underestimate the prior variance, and overestimate the significance of your differential expression calls, which is not a desirable outcome. It may possibly be defensible to perform variance filtering after the empirical Bayes step, but I'm not sure, and you would have to ask someone more knowledegable about such matters. -Ryan On Thu May 22 18:41:24 2014, Marcin Kaminski [guest] wrote: > Dear list, > I've followed the tips regarding gene filtering at http://www.biocon ductor.org/packages/release/bioc/vignettes/genefilter/inst/doc/indepen dent_filtering.pdf when analyzing GEO data (GSE48060). In this case most probes would pass the tests (for adj.p. < .05) if I filter out roughly 70% of them based on variance, which will triple the number of positives compared to not filtering at all. (related graphic: http://i.imgur.com/RuuvRIo.png) > Should I be concerned about such extensive filtering? Does it affect further analysis with limma and introduce bias? If it's a problem, what are the available solutions or diagnostics? > > Thanks for your help! > > Best regards, > Marcin > > > -- output of sessionInfo(): > > R version 3.1.0 (2014-04-10) > Platform: x86_64-w64-mingw32/x64 (64-bit) > > locale: > [1] LC_COLLATE=Polish_Poland.1250 LC_CTYPE=Polish_Poland.1250 LC_MONETARY=Polish_Poland.1250 LC_NUMERIC=C > [5] LC_TIME=Polish_Poland.1250 > > attached base packages: > [1] parallel stats graphics grDevices utils datasets methods base > > other attached packages: > [1] RColorBrewer_1.0-5 hgu133plus2.db_2.14.0 org.Hs.eg.db_2.14.0 RSQLite_0.11.4 DBI_0.2-7 AnnotationDbi_1.26.0 > [7] GenomeInfoDb_1.0.2 genefilter_1.46.1 matrixStats_0.8.14 limma_3.20.3 GEOquery_2.30.0 Biobase_2.24.0 > [13] BiocGenerics_0.10.0 > > loaded via a namespace (and not attached): > [1] annotate_1.42.0 IRanges_1.22.6 R.methodsS3_1.6.1 RCurl_1.95-4.1 splines_3.1.0 stats4_3.1.0 survival_2.37-7 tools_3.1.0 > [9] XML_3.98-1.1 xtable_1.7-3 > > > -- > 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
ADD COMMENT
0
Entering edit mode
Hello Ryan, thanks for your clear elucidation on this. Shame to admit, but after performing some additional reading I believe that my question should (at least partially) have never been asked - in limma guide it's advised to filter-out low intensities rather than low variances and more details can be found in this discussion: https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/bioconductor/2013-June/053071.html, which in fact agrees with your response. However, I'm still unable to find any straightforward answer to the question about filtering by variance after the eBayes() procedure ( https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/bioconductor/2012-March/043895.html, https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/bioconductor/2009-October/030062.html). Also, I'm still worried about such 'beneficial' change after extensive filtering, especially as I didn't found any cases, when >50% of genes have been filtered. Best regards, Marcin On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 5:33 AM, Ryan <rct@thompsonclan.org> wrote: > Hi Marcin, > > I believe that performing variance filtering is not compatible with the > empirical Bayes methods employed in limma. The point of limma is to compute > a moderated estimate of each gene's variance by using the average variance > across all genes as a prior estimate. If you filter out genes based on > their variance, then you will bias that prior estimate, and this bias will > propagate to the posterior estimates. For example, if you filter out > high-variance genes, limma will underestimate the prior variance, and > overestimate the significance of your differential expression calls, which > is not a desirable outcome. > > It may possibly be defensible to perform variance filtering after the > empirical Bayes step, but I'm not sure, and you would have to ask someone > more knowledegable about such matters. > > -Ryan > > > On Thu May 22 18:41:24 2014, Marcin Kaminski [guest] wrote: > >> Dear list, >> I've followed the tips regarding gene filtering at >> http://www.bioconductor.org/packages/release/bioc/ >> vignettes/genefilter/inst/doc/independent_filtering.pdf when analyzing >> GEO data (GSE48060). In this case most probes would pass the tests (for >> adj.p. < .05) if I filter out roughly 70% of them based on variance, which >> will triple the number of positives compared to not filtering at all. >> (related graphic: http://i.imgur.com/RuuvRIo.png) >> Should I be concerned about such extensive filtering? Does it affect >> further analysis with limma and introduce bias? If it's a problem, what are >> the available solutions or diagnostics? >> >> Thanks for your help! >> >> Best regards, >> Marcin >> >> >> -- output of sessionInfo(): >> >> R version 3.1.0 (2014-04-10) >> Platform: x86_64-w64-mingw32/x64 (64-bit) >> >> locale: >> [1] LC_COLLATE=Polish_Poland.1250 LC_CTYPE=Polish_Poland.1250 >> LC_MONETARY=Polish_Poland.1250 LC_NUMERIC=C >> [5] LC_TIME=Polish_Poland.1250 >> >> attached base packages: >> [1] parallel stats graphics grDevices utils datasets methods >> base >> >> other attached packages: >> [1] RColorBrewer_1.0-5 hgu133plus2.db_2.14.0 org.Hs.eg.db_2.14.0 >> RSQLite_0.11.4 DBI_0.2-7 AnnotationDbi_1.26.0 >> [7] GenomeInfoDb_1.0.2 genefilter_1.46.1 matrixStats_0.8.14 >> limma_3.20.3 GEOquery_2.30.0 Biobase_2.24.0 >> [13] BiocGenerics_0.10.0 >> >> loaded via a namespace (and not attached): >> [1] annotate_1.42.0 IRanges_1.22.6 R.methodsS3_1.6.1 >> RCurl_1.95-4.1 splines_3.1.0 stats4_3.1.0 survival_2.37-7 >> tools_3.1.0 >> [9] XML_3.98-1.1 xtable_1.7-3 >> >> >> -- >> Sent via the guest posting facility at bioconductor.org. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> > [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
ADD REPLY
0
Entering edit mode
Dear Marcin the platform used for GSE48060 is the Affymetrix Human Genome U133 Plus 2.0 Array. The cdf package ?hgu133plus2cdf? defines 54675 probe sets. I find it not implausible that a large fraction of these does not map to proper genes, or not to genes that are expressed in blood. In that case, filtering these out is beneficial. This is what the plot that you link below indicates. Re methodology, see also other my other, following post. Kind regards Wolfgang On 23 May 2014, at 13:22, Marcin Jakub Kami?ski <marcinjakubkaminski at="" gmail.com=""> wrote: > Hello Ryan, > thanks for your clear elucidation on this. > Shame to admit, but after performing some additional reading I believe that > my question should (at least partially) have never been asked - in limma > guide it's advised to filter-out low intensities rather than low variances > and more details can be found in this discussion: > https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/bioconductor/2013-June/053071.html, which in > fact agrees with your response. > However, I'm still unable to find any straightforward answer to the > question about filtering by variance after the eBayes() procedure ( > https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/bioconductor/2012-March/043895.html, > https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/bioconductor/2009-October/030062.html). > Also, I'm still worried about such 'beneficial' change after extensive > filtering, especially as I didn't found any cases, when >50% of genes have > been filtered. > > Best regards, > Marcin > > > > On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 5:33 AM, Ryan <rct at="" thompsonclan.org=""> wrote: > >> Hi Marcin, >> >> I believe that performing variance filtering is not compatible with the >> empirical Bayes methods employed in limma. The point of limma is to compute >> a moderated estimate of each gene's variance by using the average variance >> across all genes as a prior estimate. If you filter out genes based on >> their variance, then you will bias that prior estimate, and this bias will >> propagate to the posterior estimates. For example, if you filter out >> high-variance genes, limma will underestimate the prior variance, and >> overestimate the significance of your differential expression calls, which >> is not a desirable outcome. >> >> It may possibly be defensible to perform variance filtering after the >> empirical Bayes step, but I'm not sure, and you would have to ask someone >> more knowledegable about such matters. >> >> -Ryan >> >> >> On Thu May 22 18:41:24 2014, Marcin Kaminski [guest] wrote: >> >>> Dear list, >>> I've followed the tips regarding gene filtering at >>> http://www.bioconductor.org/packages/release/bioc/ >>> vignettes/genefilter/inst/doc/independent_filtering.pdf when analyzing >>> GEO data (GSE48060). In this case most probes would pass the tests (for >>> adj.p. < .05) if I filter out roughly 70% of them based on variance, which >>> will triple the number of positives compared to not filtering at all. >>> (related graphic: http://i.imgur.com/RuuvRIo.png) >>> Should I be concerned about such extensive filtering? Does it affect >>> further analysis with limma and introduce bias? If it's a problem, what are >>> the available solutions or diagnostics? >>> >>> Thanks for your help! >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Marcin >>> >>> >>> -- output of sessionInfo(): >>> >>> R version 3.1.0 (2014-04-10) >>> Platform: x86_64-w64-mingw32/x64 (64-bit) >>> >>> locale: >>> [1] LC_COLLATE=Polish_Poland.1250 LC_CTYPE=Polish_Poland.1250 >>> LC_MONETARY=Polish_Poland.1250 LC_NUMERIC=C >>> [5] LC_TIME=Polish_Poland.1250 >>> >>> attached base packages: >>> [1] parallel stats graphics grDevices utils datasets methods >>> base >>> >>> other attached packages: >>> [1] RColorBrewer_1.0-5 hgu133plus2.db_2.14.0 org.Hs.eg.db_2.14.0 >>> RSQLite_0.11.4 DBI_0.2-7 AnnotationDbi_1.26.0 >>> [7] GenomeInfoDb_1.0.2 genefilter_1.46.1 matrixStats_0.8.14 >>> limma_3.20.3 GEOquery_2.30.0 Biobase_2.24.0 >>> [13] BiocGenerics_0.10.0 >>> >>> loaded via a namespace (and not attached): >>> [1] annotate_1.42.0 IRanges_1.22.6 R.methodsS3_1.6.1 >>> RCurl_1.95-4.1 splines_3.1.0 stats4_3.1.0 survival_2.37-7 >>> tools_3.1.0 >>> [9] XML_3.98-1.1 xtable_1.7-3 >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >>> >> > > [[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
ADD REPLY
0
Entering edit mode
@gordon-smyth
Last seen 4 hours ago
WEHI, Melbourne, Australia
Dear Marcin, Variance filtering should not be used at any stage of the limma analysis. You are right to be worried by it. The Bioc posts you mention from 2009 and 2012 were about filtering by expression level, not by variance. Variance filtering has only been shown to be valid and beneficial when using ordinary t-tests. But greater benefits can be had by using the limma empirical Bayes t-test and filtering by expression. If you think that very small or very large variances are an issue with your data, then you could discount them in a statistically valid way by using the robust option of the eBayes() function in limma. Again this will give greater benefits than ad hoc filtering by observed variances. Apart from the fact that variance filtering invalidates the limma algorithm (or any empirical Bayes algorithm), it also worries me that variance filtering lacks a good biological interpretation, whereas filtering by mean expression has the clear interpretation of removing genes that are not at worthwhile expression levels. Best wishes Gordon > Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 13:22:23 +0200 > From: Marcin Jakub Kami?ski <marcinjakubkaminski at="" gmail.com=""> > To: Ryan <rct at="" thompsonclan.org=""> > Cc: genefilter Maintainer <maintainer at="" bioconductor.org="">, > bioconductor at r-project.org > Subject: Re: [BioC] genefilter vs limma - many probes filtered > > Hello Ryan, > thanks for your clear elucidation on this. > Shame to admit, but after performing some additional reading I believe that > my question should (at least partially) have never been asked - in limma > guide it's advised to filter-out low intensities rather than low variances > and more details can be found in this discussion: > https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/bioconductor/2013-June/053071.html, which in > fact agrees with your response. > However, I'm still unable to find any straightforward answer to the > question about filtering by variance after the eBayes() procedure ( > https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/bioconductor/2012-March/043895.html, > https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/bioconductor/2009-October/030062.html). > Also, I'm still worried about such 'beneficial' change after extensive > filtering, especially as I didn't found any cases, when >50% of genes have > been filtered. > > Best regards, > Marcin > > > > On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 5:33 AM, Ryan <rct at="" thompsonclan.org=""> wrote: > >> Hi Marcin, >> >> I believe that performing variance filtering is not compatible with the >> empirical Bayes methods employed in limma. The point of limma is to compute >> a moderated estimate of each gene's variance by using the average variance >> across all genes as a prior estimate. If you filter out genes based on >> their variance, then you will bias that prior estimate, and this bias will >> propagate to the posterior estimates. For example, if you filter out >> high-variance genes, limma will underestimate the prior variance, and >> overestimate the significance of your differential expression calls, which >> is not a desirable outcome. >> >> It may possibly be defensible to perform variance filtering after the >> empirical Bayes step, but I'm not sure, and you would have to ask someone >> more knowledegable about such matters. >> >> -Ryan >> >> >> On Thu May 22 18:41:24 2014, Marcin Kaminski [guest] wrote: >> >>> Dear list, >>> I've followed the tips regarding gene filtering at >>> http://www.bioconductor.org/packages/release/bioc/ >>> vignettes/genefilter/inst/doc/independent_filtering.pdf when analyzing >>> GEO data (GSE48060). In this case most probes would pass the tests (for >>> adj.p. < .05) if I filter out roughly 70% of them based on variance, which >>> will triple the number of positives compared to not filtering at all. >>> (related graphic: http://i.imgur.com/RuuvRIo.png) >>> Should I be concerned about such extensive filtering? Does it affect >>> further analysis with limma and introduce bias? If it's a problem, what are >>> the available solutions or diagnostics? >>> >>> Thanks for your help! >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Marcin >>> >>> >>> -- output of sessionInfo(): >>> >>> R version 3.1.0 (2014-04-10) >>> Platform: x86_64-w64-mingw32/x64 (64-bit) >>> >>> locale: >>> [1] LC_COLLATE=Polish_Poland.1250 LC_CTYPE=Polish_Poland.1250 >>> LC_MONETARY=Polish_Poland.1250 LC_NUMERIC=C >>> [5] LC_TIME=Polish_Poland.1250 >>> >>> attached base packages: >>> [1] parallel stats graphics grDevices utils datasets methods >>> base >>> >>> other attached packages: >>> [1] RColorBrewer_1.0-5 hgu133plus2.db_2.14.0 org.Hs.eg.db_2.14.0 >>> RSQLite_0.11.4 DBI_0.2-7 AnnotationDbi_1.26.0 >>> [7] GenomeInfoDb_1.0.2 genefilter_1.46.1 matrixStats_0.8.14 >>> limma_3.20.3 GEOquery_2.30.0 Biobase_2.24.0 >>> [13] BiocGenerics_0.10.0 >>> >>> loaded via a namespace (and not attached): >>> [1] annotate_1.42.0 IRanges_1.22.6 R.methodsS3_1.6.1 >>> RCurl_1.95-4.1 splines_3.1.0 stats4_3.1.0 survival_2.37-7 >>> tools_3.1.0 >>> [9] XML_3.98-1.1 xtable_1.7-3 ______________________________________________________________________ The information in this email is confidential and intend...{{dropped:4}}
ADD COMMENT
0
Entering edit mode
Dear Gordon > Variance filtering should not be used at any stage of the limma analysis. You are right to be worried by it. The Bioc posts you mention from 2009 and 2012 were about filtering by expression level, not by variance. > > Variance filtering has only been shown to be valid and beneficial when using ordinary t-tests. But greater benefits can be had by using the limma empirical Bayes t-test and filtering by expression. Above all it depends on the particular data set which, if any, filter is beneficial, and which test (t, limma-t, ?) leads to more experiment-wide power after FDR control. An analyst that wants to optimize their workflow needs to benchmark it on their data (as done by Marcin). The generic assertion above is misleading: greater benefits can be had from either method, has to depend on the data. > If you think that very small or very large variances are an issue with your data, then you could discount them in a statistically valid way by using the robust option of the eBayes() function in limma. Again this will give greater benefits than ad hoc filtering by observed variances. > > Apart from the fact that variance filtering invalidates the limma algorithm (or any empirical Bayes algorithm), It is not compatible with limma; the reason is explained in Fig. 2b/c of the PNAS paper (doi: 10.1073/pnas.0914005107), i.e. limma's inverse gamma model for the variances. It is easy to think of other empirical Bayes algorithms that are compatible with filtering (DESeq2 is only one example). As you know, all that is needed is independence of the filter criterion and the test statistic under the null. > it also worries me that variance filtering lacks a good biological interpretation, whereas filtering by mean expression has the clear interpretation of removing genes that are not at worthwhile expression levels. The explanation is simple - Affymetrix arrays have a strong gene- specific "probe effect?, which leads to a biology-independent baseline signal of each probe (and probe set). E.g. some probesets report a baseline of say 2.5 (log2 scale). even in absence of target mRNA, others one of 6. The biological signal is modulated on top of that baseline. This motivates using the variance, rather than mean, for Affymetrix arrays. For other data types, different reasonings apply. Kind regards Wolfgang > > Best wishes > Gordon > > >> Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 13:22:23 +0200 >> From: Marcin Jakub Kami?ski <marcinjakubkaminski at="" gmail.com=""> >> To: Ryan <rct at="" thompsonclan.org=""> >> Cc: genefilter Maintainer <maintainer at="" bioconductor.org="">, >> bioconductor at r-project.org >> Subject: Re: [BioC] genefilter vs limma - many probes filtered >> >> Hello Ryan, >> thanks for your clear elucidation on this. >> Shame to admit, but after performing some additional reading I believe that >> my question should (at least partially) have never been asked - in limma >> guide it's advised to filter-out low intensities rather than low variances >> and more details can be found in this discussion: >> https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/bioconductor/2013-June/053071.html, which in >> fact agrees with your response. >> However, I'm still unable to find any straightforward answer to the >> question about filtering by variance after the eBayes() procedure ( >> https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/bioconductor/2012-March/043895.html, >> https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/bioconductor/2009-October/030062.html). >> Also, I'm still worried about such 'beneficial' change after extensive >> filtering, especially as I didn't found any cases, when >50% of genes have >> been filtered. >> >> Best regards, >> Marcin >> >> >> >> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 5:33 AM, Ryan <rct at="" thompsonclan.org=""> wrote: >> >>> Hi Marcin, >>> >>> I believe that performing variance filtering is not compatible with the >>> empirical Bayes methods employed in limma. The point of limma is to compute >>> a moderated estimate of each gene's variance by using the average variance >>> across all genes as a prior estimate. If you filter out genes based on >>> their variance, then you will bias that prior estimate, and this bias will >>> propagate to the posterior estimates. For example, if you filter out >>> high-variance genes, limma will underestimate the prior variance, and >>> overestimate the significance of your differential expression calls, which >>> is not a desirable outcome. >>> >>> It may possibly be defensible to perform variance filtering after the >>> empirical Bayes step, but I'm not sure, and you would have to ask someone >>> more knowledegable about such matters. >>> >>> -Ryan >>> >>> >>> On Thu May 22 18:41:24 2014, Marcin Kaminski [guest] wrote: >>> >>>> Dear list, >>>> I've followed the tips regarding gene filtering at >>>> http://www.bioconductor.org/packages/release/bioc/ >>>> vignettes/genefilter/inst/doc/independent_filtering.pdf when analyzing >>>> GEO data (GSE48060). In this case most probes would pass the tests (for >>>> adj.p. < .05) if I filter out roughly 70% of them based on variance, which >>>> will triple the number of positives compared to not filtering at all. >>>> (related graphic: http://i.imgur.com/RuuvRIo.png) >>>> Should I be concerned about such extensive filtering? Does it affect >>>> further analysis with limma and introduce bias? If it's a problem, what are >>>> the available solutions or diagnostics? >>>> >>>> Thanks for your help! >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> Marcin >>>> >>>> >>>> -- output of sessionInfo(): >>>> >>>> R version 3.1.0 (2014-04-10) >>>> Platform: x86_64-w64-mingw32/x64 (64-bit) >>>> >>>> locale: >>>> [1] LC_COLLATE=Polish_Poland.1250 LC_CTYPE=Polish_Poland.1250 >>>> LC_MONETARY=Polish_Poland.1250 LC_NUMERIC=C >>>> [5] LC_TIME=Polish_Poland.1250 >>>> >>>> attached base packages: >>>> [1] parallel stats graphics grDevices utils datasets methods >>>> base >>>> >>>> other attached packages: >>>> [1] RColorBrewer_1.0-5 hgu133plus2.db_2.14.0 org.Hs.eg.db_2.14.0 >>>> RSQLite_0.11.4 DBI_0.2-7 AnnotationDbi_1.26.0 >>>> [7] GenomeInfoDb_1.0.2 genefilter_1.46.1 matrixStats_0.8.14 >>>> limma_3.20.3 GEOquery_2.30.0 Biobase_2.24.0 >>>> [13] BiocGenerics_0.10.0 >>>> >>>> loaded via a namespace (and not attached): >>>> [1] annotate_1.42.0 IRanges_1.22.6 R.methodsS3_1.6.1 >>>> RCurl_1.95-4.1 splines_3.1.0 stats4_3.1.0 survival_2.37-7 >>>> tools_3.1.0 >>>> [9] XML_3.98-1.1 xtable_1.7-3 > > ______________________________________________________________________ > The information in this email is confidential and intend...{{dropped:4}} > > _______________________________________________ > 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

Login before adding your answer.

Traffic: 439 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