sdavis2 at mail.nih.gov
Wed Apr 13 14:16:20 CEST 2005
On Apr 13, 2005, at 8:03 AM, Gorjanc Gregor wrote:
> You might try analysis with and without normalization and take
> a look at the results. If they say the same thing than I would
> say, no it is not necessary to do normalization.
So, if the two results agree, then the results with normalization are
correct; if not then the results with normalization are still correct.
Sounds like we are pretty much stuck with normalization....
>> dear friends
>> i have situation, where i thought its ok for me not to
>> do normalisation, i am afraid i may be wrong. i want
>> your advice in this regard.
>> we performed a wild type - mutant, dye-swap
>> when we analysed the intensity values, they were
>> consistant among the two experiment (dye-swap). ie.,
>> almost same values for mutants in both the experiments
>> of the dye-swap.
>> since the values are almost same, i thought there
>> might not be any dye-bias, so i just went ahead,
>> averaged the two values, found out their ratio and
>> filtered genes with 2 fold change.
>> so i have done this without normalisation.
>> i am afraid, i might be wrong, my 2 fold chaging genes
>> might be wrong...
>> kindly give me your advice in this regard.
>> i did analyse the data with limma, but the topTable
>> genes there never correlates with my 2 fold genes.
>> kindly correct me.
>> graduate student
>> department of biological sciences
>> the university of southern mississippi
>> MS, USA
> Lep pozdrav / With regards,
> Gregor Gorjanc
> University of Ljubljana
> Biotechnical Faculty URI: http://www.bfro.uni-lj.si/MR/ggorjan
> Zootechnical Department email: gregor.gorjanc <at> bfro.uni-lj.si
> Groblje 3 tel: +386 (0)1 72 17 861
> SI-1230 Domzale fax: +386 (0)1 72 17 888
> Bioconductor mailing list
> Bioconductor at stat.math.ethz.ch
More information about the Bioconductor