Dear Arvid,
As Jim has indicated, you have increased the number of samples you are using to estimate the standard errors more than ten-fold (from 2 groups to 21 groups). You can now call DE results with more confidence, even though the fold changes themselves remain the same.
From what you say, the results appear to be not "completely different", but simply more significant than before, this is hardly surprising given the huge increase in residual degrees of freedom.
Best wishes
Gordon
Dear All,
The dark side of this notion is that if your groupB happens to have higher true variance than the other groups (i.e. heteroscedastic), then by including the other groups you've shrunken the variance too much, and inflated significance.
This appears to be an issue not only with "lmFit", but also with camera. Although I have observed that including additional data increased p-values for the genes and gene sets, respectively (for all the groups).
Marcin
As Jim had already pointed out (in comments included in Aaron's post but deleted from Marcin's), the assumption of equal variances is a property of linear models and anova in general, not specific to limma let alone to lmFit.
If you consider that groups have substantially difference variances, then limma provides functions arrayWeights() and voomaByGroup() to deal with this.
However the linear regression methods are not particulary sensitive to unequal variances, and results usually become more conservative in this situation rather than the other way around. You would only try to fix if the problem is substantial or there are plenty of replicates in each group.
Best wishes
Gordon
Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.