Closed kvittingseerup closed 2 years ago
Is there any news on this problem? :-)
@kvittingseerup Sorry for the late reply. I've played a bit with your data, it seems that this is an artifact. Overall, the results from DEXseq are much less significant, and as our p-values are empirical, sometimes there is a perceived peak on the histogram. For different seeds this peak will disappear. Nevertheless, the p-values are well fir to a beta-uniform mixture (e.g. with BioNet::fitBumModel), which I consider as a good sign.
Additionally, I would note, that your DEXSeq P-values seem to be overconservative (with a pronounced peak at ~1), probably this is the reason, why enrichment results show much fewer significant hits.
Thanks for looking into this and figuring it out :-)
Hi Folks
First of all thanks for an amazing tool! I've been using it for most of my recent research.
Recently I've run into a problem. I've been using
fgseaMultilevel(..., scoreType = 'pos', pathways = gs)
to analyze two paired datasets, one from DESeq2 and one from DEXSeq. The p-value histograms of the DESeq2/DEXSeq analysis looks normal but when I run fgsea the fgsea p-value histogram looks problematic for the DEXSeq analysis:I would expect the mode of the distribution to be either ~0 or ~1 (like it is for the DESeq2 results), not ~0.05 like it is for the DEXseq results.
The example data visualized here can be downloaded from here and can be loaded into R with the
load()
command adding these 3 objects to your environment:I have this problem both with fgsea v1.16.0 and v1.19.4 which are the two versions I've tested.
Looking forward to hearing from you.
Cheers Kristoffer