Hi Felix,
Hi to all,
I am getting trouble at the getZscores step
First situation > fcf<-getZScores(fc19) [1] "SAMD4A_ApoI" gene-wise dispersion estimates mean-dispersion relationship -- note: fitType='parametric', but the dispersion trend was not well captured by the function: y = a/x + b, and a local regression fit was automatically substituted. specify fitType='local' or 'mean' to avoid this message next time. final dispersion estimates Error in getZScores(fc19) : Failed to estimate the parameters of the Variance stabilizing transformation.
Second Situation
> fcf<-getZScores(fc19, fitFun = "distFitMonotone") [1] "SAMD4A_NlaIII" Error in estimateSizeFactorsForMatrix(counts(object), locfunc = locfunc, : every gene contains at least one zero, cannot compute log geometric means >
My code is as follows
metaData19 <- list(projectPath = "fastq/FourCSeq_Analysis", fragmentDir = "fastq/FourCSeq_Analysis", referenceGenomeFile=referenceGenomeFile, reSequence1 = "RAATTY", reSequence2 = "GATC", primerFile = primerFile, bamFilePath = bamFilePath) colData <- DataFrame(viewpoint = "SAMD4A_ApoI", condition = factor(rep(c("Con1","Con2"),each=2), levels = c("Con1","Con2")), replicate=rep(c(1,2), 2), bamFile = c("Con1_rep1.bam", "Con1_rep2.bam", "Con2_rep1.bam", "Con2_rep2.bam"), sequencingPrimer="first") fc19<-FourC(colData,metaData19) fc19<-addFragments(fc19) fc19<-countFragmentOverlaps(fc19) fc19<- combineFragEnds(fc19) fc19<-smoothCounts(fc19) fcf<-getZScores(fc19)
In the final getZscores I used various options for the fitFun = "distFitMonotoneSymmetric" as mentioned at the help file for the function, "local" or "mean" with the same output, for both error codes.
Is there any Hope???
General Information
R version 3.3.1 (2016-06-21)
Platform: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu (64-bit)
Running under: Ubuntu 16.04 LTS
locale:
[1] LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 LC_NUMERIC=C LC_TIME=en_US.UTF-8 LC_COLLATE=en_US.UTF-8 LC_MONETARY=de_DE.UTF-8 LC_MESSAGES=en_US.UTF-8 LC_PAPER=de_DE.UTF-8
[8] LC_NAME=C LC_ADDRESS=C LC_TELEPHONE=C LC_MEASUREMENT=de_DE.UTF-8 LC_IDENTIFICATION=C
attached base packages:
[1] splines parallel stats4 stats graphics grDevices utils datasets methods base
other attached packages:
[1] TxDb.Hsapiens.UCSC.hg19.knownGene_3.2.2 GenomicFeatures_1.25.15 AnnotationDbi_1.35.4 FourCSeq_1.7.2
[5] LSD_3.0 DESeq2_1.13.8 SummarizedExperiment_1.3.7 Biobase_2.33.0
[9] ggplot2_2.1.0 GenomicRanges_1.25.9 GenomeInfoDb_1.9.4 IRanges_2.7.11
[13] S4Vectors_0.11.9 BiocGenerics_0.19.2
loaded via a namespace (and not attached):
[1] httr_1.2.1 AnnotationHub_2.5.5 gtools_3.5.0 Formula_1.2-1 shiny_0.13.2 interactiveDisplayBase_1.11.3
[7] latticeExtra_0.6-28 RBGL_1.49.1 BSgenome_1.41.2 Rsamtools_1.25.0 RSQLite_1.0.0 lattice_0.20-33
[13] biovizBase_1.21.0 chron_2.3-47 digest_0.6.9 RColorBrewer_1.1-2 XVector_0.13.6 colorspace_1.2-6
[19] ggbio_1.21.2 htmltools_0.3.5 httpuv_1.3.3 Matrix_1.2-6 plyr_1.8.4 OrganismDbi_1.15.1
[25] XML_3.98-1.4 biomaRt_2.29.2 fda_2.4.4 genefilter_1.55.2 zlibbioc_1.19.0 xtable_1.8-2
[31] scales_0.4.0 BiocParallel_1.7.4 annotate_1.51.0 nnet_7.3-12 survival_2.39-5 magrittr_1.5
[37] mime_0.5 GGally_1.2.0 foreign_0.8-66 graph_1.51.0 BiocInstaller_1.23.6 tools_3.3.1
[43] data.table_1.9.6 stringr_1.0.0 munsell_0.4.3 locfit_1.5-9.1 cluster_2.0.4 ensembldb_1.5.9
[49] Biostrings_2.41.4 grid_3.3.1 RCurl_1.95-4.8 dichromat_2.0-0 VariantAnnotation_1.19.8 bitops_1.0-6
[55] gtable_0.2.0 DBI_0.4-1 reshape_0.8.5 reshape2_1.4.1 R6_2.1.2 GenomicAlignments_1.9.6
[61] gridExtra_2.2.1 rtracklayer_1.33.10 Hmisc_3.17-4 stringi_1.1.1 Rcpp_0.12.6 geneplotter_1.51.0
[67] rpart_4.1-10 acepack_1.3-3.3
Hey Felix,
SO, I tried to mix the data set with an other dataset and I could lower significantly the
minCount
to 100, which is reasonable. Scatter plot looks the same when I am comparing the same datasets, but I was wondering if I will get more false "significant" contacts.the QQ plots are looking different though from using only the dataset that required a high
minCount
to fit a model."Especially watch out if you have a switch in the interaction differences"
I do not get that part, could you please elaborate?
Thank you for your time and your help
Theodoros
"You should definetly double check the results in this case because you probably remove quite a lot of fragments"
Any suggestions on how I can procced with that?