Closed Renee-SU closed 1 year ago
Hi,
thanks for your email
I’d assume you run StringTie2 in a way to obtain a single transcriptome for all sample, and one TPM per transcript per sample, is that correct?
And then each condition have 2 or more samples?
Do you have enough TPM values for each transcript across samples? Or do you see many missing values? That could be one of the problems
You can change the proportion of missing values allowed with the -na parameter. But it will work only if you have enough samples per condition.
I hope this helps
Eduardo
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 at 2:48 pm, Renee-SU @.***> wrote:
Hello SUPPA developers,
As limited number of AS events were detected with known annotation file, I employed StringTie to assemble and merge a gtf file. Then I used this new gtf for following steps.
When I used the command suppa.py diffSplice --method empirical --input all.ioe --psi 1R_Mk.psi 1R_Fp.psi --tpm 1R_Mk.tpm 1R_Fp.tpm -o 1R_Mk_vs_Fp --lower-bound 0.1 -gc
The first page of dpsi output file is like this: all rows of the dpsi column were nan and all rows of p value were 1.0
[image: 1690000365733] https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/139733263/255311363-61e6bea3-ca26-4b58-8855-957464c667b4.png Then, I modified the --method parameter with classical and here is the command suppa.py diffSplice --method classical --input all.ioe --psi 1R_Mk.psi 1R_Fp.psi --tpm 1R_Mk.tpm 1R_Fp.tpm -o 1R_Mk_vs_Fp --lower-bound 0.1
The fist page of dpsi output file is like this: not all rows of the dpsi column were nan and except for 1.0, other values showed in the p value column. [image: 1690000779529] https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/139733263/255311586-47714698-d047-4ef4-9b64-df08fd354a64.png However, when I filtered the p value column with the condition "p < 0.05", none was left. All rows of p value are greater than 0.05.
Have you encountered such problem before? Any possible reasons?
If this problem cannot be solved or fixed, could I only apply the condition dpsi > 0.1 not p < 0.05?
Cheers, Renee
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/comprna/SUPPA/issues/166, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADCZKBZABXG3GHQWIY5IW5DXRNLSNANCNFSM6AAAAAA2TTARXA . You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: @.***>
--
Hi, thanks for your email I’d assume you run StringTie2 in a way to obtain a single transcriptome for all sample, and one TPM per transcript per sample, is that correct? And then each condition have 2 or more samples? Do you have enough TPM values for each transcript across samples? Or do you see many missing values? That could be one of the problems You can change the proportion of missing values allowed with the -na parameter. But it will work only if you have enough samples per condition. I hope this helps Eduardo On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 at 2:48 pm, Renee-SU @.> wrote: Hello SUPPA developers, As limited number of AS events were detected with known annotation file, I employed StringTie to assemble and merge a gtf file. Then I used this new gtf for following steps. When I used the command suppa.py diffSplice --method empirical --input all.ioe --psi 1R_Mk.psi 1R_Fp.psi --tpm 1R_Mk.tpm 1R_Fp.tpm -o 1R_Mk_vs_Fp --lower-bound 0.1 -gc The first page of dpsi output file is like this: all rows of the dpsi column were nan and all rows of p value were 1.0 [image: 1690000365733] https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/139733263/255311363-61e6bea3-ca26-4b58-8855-957464c667b4.png Then, I modified the --method parameter with classical and here is the command suppa.py diffSplice --method classical --input all.ioe --psi 1R_Mk.psi 1R_Fp.psi --tpm 1R_Mk.tpm 1R_Fp.tpm -o 1R_Mk_vs_Fp --lower-bound 0.1 The fist page of dpsi output file is like this: not all rows of the dpsi column were nan and except for 1.0, other values showed in the p value column. [image: 1690000779529] https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/139733263/255311586-47714698-d047-4ef4-9b64-df08fd354a64.png However, when I filtered the p value column with the condition "p < 0.05", none was left. All rows of p value are greater than 0.05. Have you encountered such problem before? Any possible reasons? If this problem cannot be solved or fixed, could I only apply the condition dpsi > 0.1 not p < 0.05? Cheers, Renee — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#166>, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADCZKBZABXG3GHQWIY5IW5DXRNLSNANCNFSM6AAAAAA2TTARXA . You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: @.>
Hello Eduardo,
Thanks for you quick reply at weekend.
Indeed, your understanding is correct: I merged a new gtf for all samples and each condition had three replicates. I also saw many missing values in each TPM file.
I added the parameter -nan for both methods just now suppa.py diffSplice --method empirical --input all.ioe --psi 1R_Mk.psi 1R_Fp.psi --tpm 1R_Mk.tpm 1R_Fp.tpm -o 1R_Mk_vs_Fp_empirical_nan --lower-bound 0.1 -gc --nan-threshold 1.0 No significant event was detected.
suppa.py diffSplice --method classical --input all.ioe --psi 1R_Mk.psi 1R_Fp.psi --tpm 1R_Mk.tpm 1R_Fp.tpm -o 1R_Mk_vs_Fp_classical --lower-bound 0.1 --nan-threshold 1.0 7 significant events were detected.
I am not sure if classical is optimal as i only have three samples for each condition.
Cheers, Renee
Hi,
thanks for testing.
It could be the missing values.
Also, do you know if after merging you get many more transcripts? It could be that the expression is distributed across too many transcripts, so any variations get lost?
I am not sure how good the merging works, but I'm wondering what sort of uncertainty (or artefacts) it may introduce.
Missing values with little variation could explain the problem.
Some diagnostic plots about the expression of the transcripts could help identifying what is happening. E.g. expression variation across conditions, number of transcripts per gene, log10(TPM) distributions, etc... to see if the transcripts have enough expression, enough variation, etc...
I hope it helps
best
Eduardo
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 at 21:41, Renee-SU @.***> wrote:
Hi, thanks for your email I’d assume you run StringTie2 in a way to obtain a single transcriptome for all sample, and one TPM per transcript per sample, is that correct? And then each condition have 2 or more samples? Do you have enough TPM values for each transcript across samples? Or do you see many missing values? That could be one of the problems You can change the proportion of missing values allowed with the -na parameter. But it will work only if you have enough samples per condition. I hope this helps Eduardo On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 at 2:48 pm, Renee-SU @.> wrote: Hello SUPPA developers, As limited number of AS events were detected with known annotation file, I employed StringTie to assemble and merge a gtf file. Then I used this new gtf for following steps. When I used the command suppa.py diffSplice --method empirical --input all.ioe --psi 1R_Mk.psi 1R_Fp.psi --tpm 1R_Mk.tpm 1R_Fp.tpm -o 1R_Mk_vs_Fp --lower-bound 0.1 -gc The first page of dpsi output file is like this: all rows of the dpsi column were nan and all rows of p value were 1.0 [image: 1690000365733] https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/139733263/255311363-61e6bea3-ca26-4b58-8855-957464c667b4.png https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/139733263/255311363-61e6bea3-ca26-4b58-8855-957464c667b4.png Then, I modified the --method parameter with classical and here is the command suppa.py diffSplice --method classical --input all.ioe --psi 1R_Mk.psi 1R_Fp.psi --tpm 1R_Mk.tpm 1R_Fp.tpm -o 1R_Mk_vs_Fp --lower-bound 0.1 The fist page of dpsi output file is like this: not all rows of the dpsi column were nan and except for 1.0, other values showed in the p value column. [image: 1690000779529] https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/139733263/255311586-47714698-d047-4ef4-9b64-df08fd354a64.png https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/139733263/255311586-47714698-d047-4ef4-9b64-df08fd354a64.png However, when I filtered the p value column with the condition "p < 0.05", none was left. All rows of p value are greater than 0.05. Have you encountered such problem before? Any possible reasons? If this problem cannot be solved or fixed, could I only apply the condition dpsi > 0.1 not p < 0.05? Cheers, Renee — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#166 https://github.com/comprna/SUPPA/issues/166>, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADCZKBZABXG3GHQWIY5IW5DXRNLSNANCNFSM6AAAAAA2TTARXA https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADCZKBZABXG3GHQWIY5IW5DXRNLSNANCNFSM6AAAAAA2TTARXA . You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: @.>
Hello Eduardo,
Thanks for you quick reply at weekend.
Indeed, your understanding is correct: I merged a new gtf for all samples and each condition had three replicates. I also saw many missing values in each TPM file.
I added the parameter -nan for both methods just now suppa.py diffSplice --method empirical --input all.ioe --psi 1R_Mk.psi 1R_Fp.psi --tpm 1R_Mk.tpm 1R_Fp.tpm -o 1R_Mk_vs_Fp_empirical_nan --lower-bound 0.1 -gc --nan-threshold 1.0 No significant event was detected.
suppa.py diffSplice --method classical --input all.ioe --psi 1R_Mk.psi 1R_Fp.psi --tpm 1R_Mk.tpm 1R_Fp.tpm -o 1R_Mk_vs_Fp_classical --lower-bound 0.1 --nan-threshold 1.0 7 significant events were detected.
I am not sure if classical is optimal as i only have three samples for each condition.
Cheers, Renee
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/comprna/SUPPA/issues/166#issuecomment-1646564096, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADCZKB4LL7CEK33C6CAYL63XRO36HANCNFSM6AAAAAA2TTARXA . You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: @.***>
Hi Eduardo,
Thanks for your valuable suggestion.
After merging the gtf file, the number of detected transcripts increased significantly, reaching about 25 times more than before using the known gtf file.
In addition to generating the diagnostic plots as you mentioned earlier, I would like to re-merge the gtf file with individual samples on each locus. I have more than 100 samples across three loci, merging all of them together in one step could potentially lead to numerous missing values, I guess.
I will let you know when I complete the analysis above.
Cheers, Renee
From: Eduardo Eyras @.> Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2023 12:49:16 AM To: comprna/SUPPA @.> Cc: Zhouyang Su @.>; Manual @.> Subject: Re: [comprna/SUPPA] None p-value was less than 0.05 after diffSplice (Issue #166)
Hi,
thanks for testing.
It could be the missing values.
Also, do you know if after merging you get many more transcripts? It could be that the expression is distributed across too many transcripts, so any variations get lost?
I am not sure how good the merging works, but I'm wondering what sort of uncertainty (or artefacts) it may introduce.
Missing values with little variation could explain the problem.
Some diagnostic plots about the expression of the transcripts could help identifying what is happening. E.g. expression variation across conditions, number of transcripts per gene, log10(TPM) distributions, etc... to see if the transcripts have enough expression, enough variation, etc...
I hope it helps
best
Eduardo
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 at 21:41, Renee-SU @.***> wrote:
Hi, thanks for your email I’d assume you run StringTie2 in a way to obtain a single transcriptome for all sample, and one TPM per transcript per sample, is that correct? And then each condition have 2 or more samples? Do you have enough TPM values for each transcript across samples? Or do you see many missing values? That could be one of the problems You can change the proportion of missing values allowed with the -na parameter. But it will work only if you have enough samples per condition. I hope this helps Eduardo On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 at 2:48 pm, Renee-SU @.> wrote: Hello SUPPA developers, As limited number of AS events were detected with known annotation file, I employed StringTie to assemble and merge a gtf file. Then I used this new gtf for following steps. When I used the command suppa.py diffSplice --method empirical --input all.ioe --psi 1R_Mk.psi 1R_Fp.psi --tpm 1R_Mk.tpm 1R_Fp.tpm -o 1R_Mk_vs_Fp --lower-bound 0.1 -gc The first page of dpsi output file is like this: all rows of the dpsi column were nan and all rows of p value were 1.0 [image: 1690000365733] https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/139733263/255311363-61e6bea3-ca26-4b58-8855-957464c667b4.pnghttps://user-images.githubusercontent.com/139733263/255311363-61e6bea3-ca26-4b58-8855-957464c667b4.png https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/139733263/255311363-61e6bea3-ca26-4b58-8855-957464c667b4.png<https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/139733263/255311363-61e6bea3-ca26-4b58-8855-957464c667b4.png> Then, I modified the --method parameter with classical and here is the command suppa.py diffSplice --method classical --input all.ioe --psi 1R_Mk.psi 1R_Fp.psi --tpm 1R_Mk.tpm 1R_Fp.tpm -o 1R_Mk_vs_Fp --lower-bound 0.1 The fist page of dpsi output file is like this: not all rows of the dpsi column were nan and except for 1.0, other values showed in the p value column. [image: 1690000779529] https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/139733263/255311586-47714698-d047-4ef4-9b64-df08fd354a64.pnghttps://user-images.githubusercontent.com/139733263/255311586-47714698-d047-4ef4-9b64-df08fd354a64.png https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/139733263/255311586-47714698-d047-4ef4-9b64-df08fd354a64.png<https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/139733263/255311586-47714698-d047-4ef4-9b64-df08fd354a64.png> However, when I filtered the p value column with the condition "p < 0.05", none was left. All rows of p value are greater than 0.05. Have you encountered such problem before? Any possible reasons? If this problem cannot be solved or fixed, could I only apply the condition dpsi > 0.1 not p < 0.05? Cheers, Renee — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#166 https://github.com/comprna/SUPPA/issues/166<https://github.com/comprna/SUPPA/issues/166>>, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADCZKBZABXG3GHQWIY5IW5DXRNLSNANCNFSM6AAAAAA2TTARXAhttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADCZKBZABXG3GHQWIY5IW5DXRNLSNANCNFSM6AAAAAA2TTARXA https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADCZKBZABXG3GHQWIY5IW5DXRNLSNANCNFSM6AAAAAA2TTARXA<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADCZKBZABXG3GHQWIY5IW5DXRNLSNANCNFSM6AAAAAA2TTARXA> . You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: @.>
Hello Eduardo,
Thanks for you quick reply at weekend.
Indeed, your understanding is correct: I merged a new gtf for all samples and each condition had three replicates. I also saw many missing values in each TPM file.
I added the parameter -nan for both methods just now suppa.py diffSplice --method empirical --input all.ioe --psi 1R_Mk.psi 1R_Fp.psi --tpm 1R_Mk.tpm 1R_Fp.tpm -o 1R_Mk_vs_Fp_empirical_nan --lower-bound 0.1 -gc --nan-threshold 1.0 No significant event was detected.
suppa.py diffSplice --method classical --input all.ioe --psi 1R_Mk.psi 1R_Fp.psi --tpm 1R_Mk.tpm 1R_Fp.tpm -o 1R_Mk_vs_Fp_classical --lower-bound 0.1 --nan-threshold 1.0 7 significant events were detected.
I am not sure if classical is optimal as i only have three samples for each condition.
Cheers, Renee
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/comprna/SUPPA/issues/166#issuecomment-1646564096<https://github.com/comprna/SUPPA/issues/166#issuecomment-1646564096>, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADCZKB4LL7CEK33C6CAYL63XRO36HANCNFSM6AAAAAA2TTARXA<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADCZKB4LL7CEK33C6CAYL63XRO36HANCNFSM6AAAAAA2TTARXA> . You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: @.***>
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/comprna/SUPPA/issues/166#issuecomment-1646599950, or unsubscribehttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/BBKCSDZ2H6ZFYF77T5GRWJTXRPR6ZANCNFSM6AAAAAA2TTARXA. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: @.***>
This email is confidential, and is for the intended recipient only. Access, disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance on any of it by anyone outside the intended recipient organisation is prohibited and may be a criminal offence. Please delete if obtained in error and email confirmation to the sender. The views expressed in this email are not necessarily the views of the University of Tasmania, unless clearly intended otherwise.
Hi,
thanks for the info.
Yes, that could be the issue.
Is there a way to make the merging more permissive? StringTie2 might be separating transcripts by small differences.
If you only have three loci, does it mean that in total you don't have too many reads? I mean, that the total is not 100 samples x full transcriptome, but rather something like 100 samples x 3 genes?
An alternative could be to merge all reads to build one single StringTie2 transcriptome, then quantify those transcripts separately for each sample.
Even if you have full transcriptomes, you could potentially do that by running StringTie2 in genomic subregions, so that you don't need to use so many reads in each process.
Please let me know if that could help
best
Eduardo
On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 at 15:41, Renee-SU @.***> wrote:
Hi Eduardo,
Thanks for your valuable suggestion.
After merging the gtf file, the number of detected transcripts increased significantly, reaching about 25 times more than before using the known gtf file.
In addition to generating the diagnostic plots as you mentioned earlier, I would like to re-merge the gtf file with individual samples on each locus. I have more than 100 samples across three loci, merging all of them together in one step could potentially lead to numerous missing values, I guess.
I will let you know when I complete the analysis above.
Cheers, Renee
From: Eduardo Eyras @.> Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2023 12:49:16 AM To: comprna/SUPPA @.> Cc: Zhouyang Su @.>; Manual @.> Subject: Re: [comprna/SUPPA] None p-value was less than 0.05 after diffSplice (Issue #166)
Hi,
thanks for testing.
It could be the missing values.
Also, do you know if after merging you get many more transcripts? It could be that the expression is distributed across too many transcripts, so any variations get lost?
I am not sure how good the merging works, but I'm wondering what sort of uncertainty (or artefacts) it may introduce.
Missing values with little variation could explain the problem.
Some diagnostic plots about the expression of the transcripts could help identifying what is happening. E.g. expression variation across conditions, number of transcripts per gene, log10(TPM) distributions, etc... to see if the transcripts have enough expression, enough variation, etc...
I hope it helps
best
Eduardo
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 at 21:41, Renee-SU @.***> wrote:
Hi, thanks for your email I’d assume you run StringTie2 in a way to obtain a single transcriptome for all sample, and one TPM per transcript per sample, is that correct? And then each condition have 2 or more samples? Do you have enough TPM values for each transcript across samples? Or do you see many missing values? That could be one of the problems You can change the proportion of missing values allowed with the -na parameter. But it will work only if you have enough samples per condition. I hope this helps Eduardo On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 at 2:48 pm, Renee-SU @.*> wrote: Hello SUPPA developers, As limited number of AS events were detected with known annotation file, I employed StringTie to assemble and merge a gtf file. Then I used this new gtf for following steps. When I used the command suppa.py diffSplice --method empirical --input all.ioe --psi 1R_Mk.psi 1R_Fp.psi --tpm 1R_Mk.tpm 1R_Fp.tpm -o 1R_Mk_vs_Fp --lower-bound 0.1 -gc The first page of dpsi output file is like this: all rows of the dpsi column were nan and all rows of p value were 1.0 [image: 1690000365733]
https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/139733263/255311363-61e6bea3-ca26-4b58-8855-957464c667b4.png < https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/139733263/255311363-61e6bea3-ca26-4b58-8855-957464c667b4.png>
< https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/139733263/255311363-61e6bea3-ca26-4b58-8855-957464c667b4.png < https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/139733263/255311363-61e6bea3-ca26-4b58-8855-957464c667b4.png>>
Then, I modified the --method parameter with classical and here is the command suppa.py diffSplice --method classical --input all.ioe --psi 1R_Mk.psi 1R_Fp.psi --tpm 1R_Mk.tpm 1R_Fp.tpm -o 1R_Mk_vs_Fp --lower-bound 0.1 The fist page of dpsi output file is like this: not all rows of the dpsi column were nan and except for 1.0, other values showed in the p value column. [image: 1690000779529]
https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/139733263/255311586-47714698-d047-4ef4-9b64-df08fd354a64.png < https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/139733263/255311586-47714698-d047-4ef4-9b64-df08fd354a64.png>
< https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/139733263/255311586-47714698-d047-4ef4-9b64-df08fd354a64.png < https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/139733263/255311586-47714698-d047-4ef4-9b64-df08fd354a64.png>>
However, when I filtered the p value column with the condition "p < 0.05", none was left. All rows of p value are greater than 0.05. Have you encountered such problem before? Any possible reasons? If this problem cannot be solved or fixed, could I only apply the condition dpsi > 0.1 not p < 0.05? Cheers, Renee — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#166 https://github.com/comprna/SUPPA/issues/166< https://github.com/comprna/SUPPA/issues/166>>, or unsubscribe
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADCZKBZABXG3GHQWIY5IW5DXRNLSNANCNFSM6AAAAAA2TTARXA < https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADCZKBZABXG3GHQWIY5IW5DXRNLSNANCNFSM6AAAAAA2TTARXA>
< https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADCZKBZABXG3GHQWIY5IW5DXRNLSNANCNFSM6AAAAAA2TTARXA < https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADCZKBZABXG3GHQWIY5IW5DXRNLSNANCNFSM6AAAAAA2TTARXA>>
. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: @.*>
Hello Eduardo,
Thanks for you quick reply at weekend.
Indeed, your understanding is correct: I merged a new gtf for all samples and each condition had three replicates. I also saw many missing values in each TPM file.
I added the parameter -nan for both methods just now suppa.py diffSplice --method empirical --input all.ioe --psi 1R_Mk.psi 1R_Fp.psi --tpm 1R_Mk.tpm 1R_Fp.tpm -o 1R_Mk_vs_Fp_empirical_nan --lower-bound 0.1 -gc --nan-threshold 1.0 No significant event was detected.
suppa.py diffSplice --method classical --input all.ioe --psi 1R_Mk.psi 1R_Fp.psi --tpm 1R_Mk.tpm 1R_Fp.tpm -o 1R_Mk_vs_Fp_classical --lower-bound 0.1 --nan-threshold 1.0 7 significant events were detected.
I am not sure if classical is optimal as i only have three samples for each condition.
Cheers, Renee
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/comprna/SUPPA/issues/166#issuecomment-1646564096< https://github.com/comprna/SUPPA/issues/166#issuecomment-1646564096>, or unsubscribe < https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADCZKB4LL7CEK33C6CAYL63XRO36HANCNFSM6AAAAAA2TTARXA < https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADCZKB4LL7CEK33C6CAYL63XRO36HANCNFSM6AAAAAA2TTARXA>>
. You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: @.***>
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub< https://github.com/comprna/SUPPA/issues/166#issuecomment-1646599950>, or unsubscribe< https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/BBKCSDZ2H6ZFYF77T5GRWJTXRPR6ZANCNFSM6AAAAAA2TTARXA>.
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: @.***>
This email is confidential, and is for the intended recipient only. Access, disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance on any of it by anyone outside the intended recipient organisation is prohibited and may be a criminal offence. Please delete if obtained in error and email confirmation to the sender. The views expressed in this email are not necessarily the views of the University of Tasmania, unless clearly intended otherwise.
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/comprna/SUPPA/issues/166#issuecomment-1646752564, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADCZKBZTMSK2VRFSGM2WTV3XRS2O5ANCNFSM6AAAAAA2TTARXA . You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: @.***>
Hi Eduardo,
If possible, could I have more information about classical mode? I could only find BH method was mentioned in the SUPPA2 paper.
Cheers, Renee
Hi Renee,
the classical mode will perform a Wilcoxon test for each event between the samples in each condition. It is recommended when you have a large number of samples per condition, usually at least 10, but you could still use it with fewer samples.
I hope this helps
Eduardo
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 at 21:59, Renee-SU @.***> wrote:
Hi Eduardo,
If possible, could I have more information about classical mode? I could only find BH method was mentioned in the SUPPA2 paper.
Cheers, Renee
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/comprna/SUPPA/issues/166#issuecomment-1663854147, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADCZKB6IPJSWZR6SSIA6GUDXTOHCTANCNFSM6AAAAAA2TTARXA . You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: @.***>
Hi Eduardo,
Thanks for all your help and support. Empirical mode is fine for me now. After I re-edited my input files (removed the extra tabs for first header and added a column name for the first column), SUPPA worked.
Have a good weekend.
Cheers, Renee
Hello SUPPA developers,
As limited number of AS events were detected with known annotation file, I employed StringTie to assemble and merge a gtf file. Then I used this new gtf for following steps.
When I used the command suppa.py diffSplice --method empirical --input all.ioe --psi 1R_Mk.psi 1R_Fp.psi --tpm 1R_Mk.tpm 1R_Fp.tpm -o 1R_Mk_vs_Fp --lower-bound 0.1 -gc
The first page of dpsi output file is like this: all rows of the dpsi column were nan and all rows of p value were 1.0
Then, I modified the --method parameter with classical and here is the command suppa.py diffSplice --method classical --input all.ioe --psi 1R_Mk.psi 1R_Fp.psi --tpm 1R_Mk.tpm 1R_Fp.tpm -o 1R_Mk_vs_Fp --lower-bound 0.1
The fist page of dpsi output file is like this: not all rows of the dpsi column were nan and except for 1.0, other values showed in the p value column. However, when I filtered the p value column with the condition "p < 0.05", none was left. All rows of p value are greater than 0.05.
Have you encountered such problem before? Any possible reasons?
If this problem cannot be solved or fixed, could I only apply the condition dpsi > 0.1 not p < 0.05?
Cheers, Renee