[BioC] Missing Autocorrelation in Ringo
Joern Toedling
Joern.Toedling at curie.fr
Tue Jun 30 16:40:17 CEST 2009
Hi Torsten,
I suggest that you first update your R and Bioconductor installation as you
are using very out-dated versions of both (R is currently 2.9.0 and for Ringo
please use the current development version (1.9.5), which can be downloaded as
a binary from here:
http://www.bioconductor.org/packages/devel/bioc/html/Ringo.html
). In the current version of Ringo, you will also find the function
extractProbeAnno. And indeed such a low degree of autocorrelation is
unexpected. What was the length distribution of fragments after sonication?
Typically you would expect some auto-correlation at least up to that length.
This factor is also important for setting the sliding-window width for
smoothing the signal prior to peak detection. However, your data objects look
alright, so I am afraid that I do not immediately see the problem.
For judging the quality of the found "peaks", you can resort to visualizations
of a.) the highest-ranking peaks b.) the lowest-ranking peaks c.) positive
control regions where you would expect peaks d.) negative control-regions
where no enrichment is to be expected.
Usually the "null distribution" of smoothed probe levels under non-enrichment
can only roughly be estimated from the data based on certain simplifying
assumptions, so I would not lend too much confidence to p-values and FDRs from
such estimates.
Regards,
Joern
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:04:31 +0200, Torsten Waldminghaus wrote
> Hi,
>
> thanks for the answer and sorry for not making it more clear. I get
> a plot but it suggests that there is no autocorrelation. This means
> the column at point "0" is at 1.0 as usual but at "100", "200",...
> there are only dots which vary a bit in their size. Now the results
> you were interested in:
>
> > str(exAc)
> Class 'autocor.result' atomic [1:11] 1.00000 -0.00469 -0.00660
> 0.00538 0.00652 ... ..- attr(*, "chromosome")= chr "1"
>
> > ls(annoObject)
> [1] "1.end" "1.index" "1.start" "1.unique"
>
> > head(annoObject["1.start"])
> [1] 68 154 189 294 365 440
>
> I tried the function extractProbeAnno but it does actually not seem
> to be there. R did not find it and I did also not find a help entry
> for it:
>
> > help(extractProbeAnno)
> No documentation for 'extractProbeAnno' in specified packages and libraries:
> you could try 'help.search("extractProbeAnno")'
>
> However, I could use for example posToProbeAnno and find the
> corresponding help page?!
>
> Here is the session info:
>
> > sessionInfo()
> R version 2.7.2 (2008-08-25)
> i386-pc-mingw32
>
> locale:
> LC_COLLATE=Norwegian (Bokmål)_Norway.1252;LC_CTYPE=Norwegian (Bokmål)
> _Norway.1252;LC_MONETARY=Norwegian (Bokmål)
> _Norway.1252;LC_NUMERIC=C;LC_TIME=Norwegian (Bokmål)_Norway.1252
>
> attached base packages:
> [1] splines tools stats graphics grDevices utils
> datasets methods base
>
> other attached packages:
> [1] Ringo_1.4.0 SparseM_0.78 RColorBrewer_1.0-2
> vsn_3.6..0 affy_1.18.2 [6] preprocessCore_1.2.1
> affyio_1.8.1 geneplotter_1.18.0 annotate_1.18.0
> xtable_1.5-4 [11] AnnotationDbi_1.2.2 RSQLite_0.7-1
> DBI_0.2-4 lattice_0.17-13 genefilter_1.20.1 [16]
> survival_2.34-1 Biobase_2.0.1 limma_2.14.7
>
> loaded via a namespace (and not attached):
> [1] grid_2.7.2 KernSmooth_2.22-22
>
> Beyond the problems with getting the autocorrelation I was wondering
> if there is a good way to judge the quality of Ringo peak detection
> or the probability of getting wrong hits or loosing some?
>
> Thanks for any help,
> Torsten
More information about the Bioconductor
mailing list