updated 1 day ago by
ATpoint
★
4.1k
•
written 2 days ago by
pangtaihin
•
0
4
votes
9
replies
229
views
2
votes
7
replies
362
views
9 days ago • updated 6 days ago
sajadahmad41454
•
0
1
vote
2
replies
225
views
4 days ago • updated 1 day ago
BioinfGuru
▴
30
0
votes
8
replies
480
views
updated 3 days ago by
BioinfGuru
▴
30
•
written 4 days ago by
Eric Katagirya
•
0
0
votes
3
replies
100
views
updated 2 days ago by
Michael Love
42k
•
written 3 days ago by
Kasper
•
0
0
votes
1
reply
82
views
updated 3 days ago by
Michael Love
42k
•
written 4 days ago by
piemmea
•
0
0
votes
1
reply
43
views
12 hours ago • updated 11 hours ago
shaunpeterson
•
0
0
votes
2
replies
80
views
Recent ...
Replies
Comment: Numerical differences in DESeq2 output depending on different design matrix cons
by
JKim
•
0
The 1st model has an interaction term, but the 2nd model doesn't have the interaction term. That would probably make the difference.
Comment: Ensembl plants at annotationHub?
by
Daniele
•
0
Hi,
I'm using Ensembl Plants release 59 with the IWGSC RefSeq v1.1 gene annotation.
Thanks a lot for replying so quickly!
Comment: Numerical differences in DESeq2 output depending on different design matrix cons
by
swbarnes2
★
1.4k
If you restrict yourself to, say, genes with a baseMean > 50, are the numerical differences between the two designs significant?
Comment: DESeq2- Mysterious interaction suppresses DEGs
by
shaunpeterson
•
0
The images I tried to attach didn't attach. Here is the PCA (MDS) of all the samples, with the Cortex outlier highlighed.
United States, 5 minutes ago
The city by the bay, 56 minutes ago
Poland, 1 hour ago
Melbourne, Australia, 2 hours ago
Ireland, 2 hours ago
United States, 5 minutes ago
The city by the bay, 56 minutes ago
Poland, 1 hour ago
Melbourne, Australia, 2 hours ago
Ireland, 2 hours ago
Traffic: 443 users visited in the last hour
Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.
Powered by the
version 2.3.6
version 2.3.6