Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

deseq2_confects support for likelihood ratio test output? #3

Open
sharbhaw opened this issue Jul 27, 2018 · 3 comments
Open

deseq2_confects support for likelihood ratio test output? #3

sharbhaw opened this issue Jul 27, 2018 · 3 comments
Labels

Comments

@sharbhaw
Copy link

We are wondering if there is a possibility of adding likelihood ratio test support in your package because we are trying to run a more complicated model than the Wald Test. We tried to use the deseq_2confects function and got an error with the likelihood test setup.

@sharbhaw sharbhaw changed the title deseq_2confects support for likelihood ratio test output? deseq2_confects support for likelihood ratio test output? Jul 27, 2018
@pfh
Copy link
Owner

pfh commented Jul 28, 2018

Hi sharbhaw,

This is something I definitely want to provide, but haven't worked out how to yet. The confects method currently only works when testing a single coefficient or contrast. For more complicated tests such as ANOVA style tests, there is a question of what is the actual effect size (there are more options here than when only defining a null hypothesis). I'm also still trying to puzzle out how a test-relative-to-a-threshold would work in more than one dimension.

@pfh pfh added the wishlist label Jul 28, 2018
@sharbhaw
Copy link
Author

I wonder if it would be possible to support LRT results in some simple use cases
that have a binary comparison / effect size? For example
we have used DESeq2::nbinomLRT with full = ~ batch + genotype, reduced = ~ batch,
where our effect size of interest is genotype-wt vs genotype-mutant. The other
model we have used is full = ~ genotype, reduced = ~ 1 (we have some experience that
the LRT is more reliable than the Wald test).

@pfh
Copy link
Owner

pfh commented Jul 31, 2018

In this case you could try edger_confects, which uses the edgeR quasi-likelihood version of TREAT.

(This is quasi-likelihood rather than likelihood, which I think is better as it takes into account uncertainty in the dispersion. I could fairly easily support the likelihood version of TREAT from edgeR, but I think it's too liberal on account of not taking into account uncertainty in the dispersion. Willing to listen to arguments on this though.)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants