DESeq2 ashr with and without reflevels generate different log2FoldChanges
1
0
Entering edit mode
@sofiagreen72211-13691
Last seen 25 days ago
United States

Hi, I'm using Deseq2 (v1.26.0) and ashr (v2.2-47) to shrink the log2FoldChange of the genes resulting from interaction term. DEseq2 returns the different shrunken log2FoldChanges with (ref) and without (noref) defining the relevels (see below).
enter image description here

More information on experimental side: I have two cell types (cells: WT & Mut) with and without treatment (trt: UT, T). Each contains 3 samples (rep: 1..3). Here are the example files.

I want to identify the genes having response differences of treatment among Mut.T/UT vs WT.T/UT using the following design = ~cell+trt+cell:trt followed by ashr fold-change shrinkage.

I get different results with ashr with reference levels compared to the ones without defining the reference levels (see above table for example).

  • My question is "How is it possible to get different log2FC using lfcshrink (ashr) by defining relevels compared to no relevels defining?"

  • Can someone please help to understand this inconsistency in log2FCs?

  • Am I doing something wrong (see my code below)?

Any advise in this regards will be greatly appreciated.

Best, Sofia G

Here is the code I used to carry out the analysis:

library(DESeq2)

# load input files
mat = read.table("raw.txt", row.names = 1, header=1, sep="\t")
edf = read.table("edf.txt", row.names = 1, header=1, sep="\t")

# with reference levels
dds <- DESeqDataSetFromMatrix(countData = mat, colData = edf, design = ~cell+trt+cell:trt)
dds$cell <- relevel(dds$cell, "Wt")
dds$trt <- relevel(dds$trt, "UT")
dds <- DESeq(dds, minReplicatesForReplace=Inf)
out <- results(dds, cooksCutoff=FALSE, independentFiltering=FALSE, name="cellMut.trtT")
res = lfcShrink(dds, res=out, coef="cellMut.trtT", type="ashr")

# without reference levels
dds <- DESeqDataSetFromMatrix(countData = mat, colData = edf, design = ~cell+trt+cell:trt)
dds <- DESeq(dds, minReplicatesForReplace=Inf)
out1 = results(dds, cooksCutoff=FALSE, independentFiltering=FALSE, name="cellWt.trtUT")
res1 = lfcShrink(dds, res=out1, coef="cellWt.trtUT", type="ashr")

# merge results generated with and without reference levels
tab1 <- as.data.frame(res)
tab1 <- cbind(gene = rownames(tab1), tab1) # with ref results
tab2 <- as.data.frame(res1)
tab2 <- cbind(gene = rownames(tab2), tab2) # without ref results

final <- plyr::join_all(list(tab1,tab2), by="gene", match = "all")


sessionInfo( )
R version 3.6.1 (2019-07-05)
Platform: x86_64-w64-mingw32/x64 (64-bit)
Running under: Windows 10 x64 (build 19042)

Matrix products: default

locale:
[1] LC_COLLATE=English_United States.1252  LC_CTYPE=English_United States.1252    LC_MONETARY=English_United States.1252
[4] LC_NUMERIC=C                           LC_TIME=English_United States.1252    

attached base packages:
[1] parallel  stats4    stats     graphics  grDevices utils     datasets  methods   base     

other attached packages:
 [1] DESeq2_1.26.0               SummarizedExperiment_1.16.1 DelayedArray_0.12.3         BiocParallel_1.20.1        
 [5] matrixStats_0.58.0          Biobase_2.46.0              GenomicRanges_1.38.0        GenomeInfoDb_1.22.1        
 [9] IRanges_2.20.2              S4Vectors_0.24.4            BiocGenerics_0.32.0         dplyr_0.8.3                

loaded via a namespace (and not attached):
 [1] bit64_4.0.5            splines_3.6.1          Formula_1.2-4          assertthat_0.2.1       mixsqp_0.3-43          latticeExtra_0.6-30   
 [7] blob_1.2.1             GenomeInfoDbData_1.2.2 pillar_1.5.1           RSQLite_2.2.5          backports_1.2.1        lattice_0.20-38       
[13] glue_1.4.2             digest_0.6.27          RColorBrewer_1.1-2     XVector_0.26.0         checkmate_2.0.0        colorspace_2.0-0      
[19] htmltools_0.5.1.1      Matrix_1.2-17          plyr_1.8.6             XML_3.99-0.3           pkgconfig_2.0.3        invgamma_1.1          
[25] genefilter_1.68.0      zlibbioc_1.32.0        purrr_0.3.3            xtable_1.8-6           scales_1.1.1           jpeg_0.1-8.1          
[31] htmlTable_2.1.0        tibble_2.1.3           annotate_1.64.0        ggplot2_3.3.3          ellipsis_0.3.1         cachem_1.0.4          
[37] ashr_2.2-47            nnet_7.3-12            survival_3.2-10        magrittr_2.0.1         crayon_1.4.1           memoise_2.0.0         
[43] fansi_0.4.2            truncnorm_1.0-8        foreign_0.8-72         tools_3.6.1            data.table_1.13.6      lifecycle_1.0.0       
[49] stringr_1.4.0          locfit_1.5-9.4         munsell_0.5.0          irlba_2.3.3            cluster_2.1.0          AnnotationDbi_1.48.0  
[55] compiler_3.6.1         rlang_0.4.10           grid_3.6.1             RCurl_1.98-1.3         rstudioapi_0.13        htmlwidgets_1.5.3     
[61] bitops_1.0-6           base64enc_0.1-4        gtable_0.3.0           DBI_1.1.1              R6_2.5.0               gridExtra_2.3         
[67] knitr_1.31             fastmap_1.1.0          bit_4.0.4              utf8_1.2.1             Hmisc_4.5-0            stringi_1.5.3         
[73] SQUAREM_2021.1         Rcpp_1.0.3             geneplotter_1.64.0     vctrs_0.3.7            rpart_4.1-15           png_0.1-8             
[79] tidyselect_0.2.5       xfun_0.22
DESeq2 RNASeq • 128 views
ADD COMMENT
0
Entering edit mode
@mikelove
Last seen 6 hours ago
United States

"How is it possible to get different log2FC using lfcShrink (ashr) by defining relevels compared to no relevels defining?"

This has been asked before on the support site, but it may have been difficult to find those posts.

While the regression coefficients and p-values may be similar, shrinkage estimators for regression coefficients are not always the same upon changing the reference levels of factors in defining the columns of the design matrix, X. This is true for LASSO and ridge (L1 and L2 penalized) regression as well. I recommend to pick a reasonable reference level and stick with that for the inference.

ADD COMMENT
0
Entering edit mode

Hi Michael - thank you for your reply. Is this explain in the vignettes?

ADD REPLY
0
Entering edit mode

It's not a simple explanation, and we don't talk about it in the vignettes I believe, but it's just the case that penalized regression is not always symmetric across change in the reference levels.

What happens if you plot out$log2FoldChange vs res$log2FoldChange for ref and no ref? Do those plots look similar?

ADD REPLY

Login before adding your answer.

Traffic: 352 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