[BioC] random positioning of duplicate spots
pwo at exiqon.com
Wed May 6 08:26:54 CEST 2009
One way to do this is to use the probe IDs as names of your data points.
I don't know how your system is set up, but I'll show how I summarize by
name without changing the original order of the spots:
mywtfun <- function(exclude.flags=c(1,2,3,4,5,6,7))
function(obj) 1-(obj$Flag %in% exclude.flags)
RG.MDA <- read.maimages(file.MDA, source="imagene",
columns=list(f="Signal Mean",b="Background Median"))
rownames(RG.MDA) <- RG.MDA$genes[,6]
Cy3.channel.MDA = RG.MDA$G
I use the median of the replicated spot rather than the mean.
I hope it can be of some use and that Outlook doesn't break my lines in
Peder Worning, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist, Biomarker Discovery
Telephone: +45 45650457
Telefax: +45 45661888
E-mail: pwo at exiqon.com
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or
taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you
received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the
material from any computer
From: bioconductor-bounces at stat.math.ethz.ch
[mailto:bioconductor-bounces at stat.math.ethz.ch] On Behalf Of Vishal
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 7:45 PM
To: bioconductor at stat.math.ethz.ch
Subject: [BioC] random positioning of duplicate spots
I had posted earlier about my problem but didn't get any response that
help so I am seeking your help again.
I have duplicate spots on my nimblegen array that are position
there is no order to their placement. In Limma when we call the
duplicateCorrelation() function, it requires that the duplicate spots
some order to them, like they are either adjacent or they are on upper
lower halves of the array. In this case, can someone please help me
how to go about analyzing these spots?
I really appreciate your input.
This gives me a negative corelation of -0.08 the reason being that the
are randomized. Is there a solution to this?
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
Bioconductor mailing list
Bioconductor at stat.math.ethz.ch
Search the archives:
More information about the Bioconductor