[BioC] summarizing probe intensites before or after normalization- 1. how to do with RMA 2. Opinions?

Ben Bolstad bmb at bmbolstad.com
Mon Sep 11 16:54:53 CEST 2006


On Mon, 2006-09-11 at 16:44 +0200, k. brand wrote:
> Ben,
> 
> Thankyou for your fast response.
> 
> I tried your suggested script as:
> 
> library(affyPLM)
> dat <- ReadAffy()
> datrma <- rma(dat, normalize=FALSE)
> datrma.postqnorm <- normalize(datrma)
> boxplot(datrma)
> 

try 

boxplot(datrma.postqnorm)


Here is my test code that shows it works

library(affyPLM)
data(Dilution)
rma.nonorm <- rma(Dilution,normalize=FALSE)
rma.postnorm <- normalize(rma.nonorm)
boxplot(rma.nonorm)
boxplot(rma.postnorm)


> Im convinced RMA is a superior approach to MAS5. The variation of the 
> spreads however, compared to normalising in the last stage is 
> surprising. From "RMA no norm.jpeg" you can see my data is quite 
> 'divergent' which is exactly why i want to normalize as best i can. But 
> perhaps RMA is not 'strong' enough to push around such divergence?

Based on the plot you sent me:

1) is there a biological reason for the pattern I see (ie first two low,
next two high, next two low ....) or is this some sort of technical
artifact.

2) Have you carried out any quality assessment?



More information about the Bioconductor mailing list