Hi all,
I have a RNA seq data performed at different time points. So for every time I have 4 samples(Control, Knock-down_1, Knock-down_2, Knock-down_3). So all together there are 36 samples from all 3 time points.
Now I want to compare every Knock-down sample within a particular time point to its Control samples within the particular time point.
So for this type of analysis,
a) Should I include all the 36 samples all together in the count matrix and later contrast to specify the sample vs samples in DESeq2
OR
b) Should I include only samples within the particular time point(12 samples) in the count matrix and compare all Knock-down samples with respect to Control sample using DESeq2
OR
c) Should I include only two samples within a time point in count matrix and compute diff. expressed genes using DESeq2
Thanks in advance
Thank you Michael. You understood correctly my experimental design. So far I have made a data frame called
conditions
in R like followingddsFullCountTable <- DESeqDataSetFromMatrix(countData = rnaseqMatrix,colData = conditions,design = ~ conditions
When I want compute the diff expressed between two conditions, I use results in following way
Now using the "name" parameter, how can this be achieved according to my conditions. Just to make sure, that I am not comparing the samples between the time points but within time point.
Your code is correct for the way you have set it up. You should use 'contrast' as you have.
The example I pointed you to is going at it a different way, but you can go ahead and use the code you have.
Thanks a lot Michael. The strange thing which I found this huge data is that many replicates particular samples in particular time point gets clustered with other samples of different time point. I havent observed such kind of clustering and I am wondering how to handle such replicate that dosent clusters within its own group. Kindly guide me
I don't have any particular advice. Remember that PCA is not the data itself, but a reduction into 2 dimensions. So it doesn't imply a problem necessarily.