What is Those variance means exactly in this PCA plot
I had 2 paired end data, 1 normal and 1 treat and because i just had these two, i had some error for analyzing them and the results were wrong. So i turned them into single ends, and i got acceptable results. but i worried about this plot because of that 2%. can some one explain about that ?
Am i going to have problem with that 2% variance or it is ok ?
I do not really understand how your dataset is structured. If you are attempting a DEG analysis with just 1 replicate per condition, do not even bother doing that.
However, let say you have 2 biological replicates per condition, I would be worried about that 98% variance; the differences across your conditions are so huge that you will not get any meaningful results from a DEG analysis (too many DEG).
Indeed, that PCA bi-plot looks strange... Can you please show or explain your data processing steps, and outline your experiment, generally?
I had 2 paired end data.Just 2. i know it is not usual. Those data were belong to one of my partners, those were all data she had. this was the process: 1:cutting adapters 2: Map with Star 3: Cout with Feature Count 4: Differentiated with Deseq2 Then i have 15 gene correctly differentiated and related to her subject which was Drug resistance.
So, you performed PCA using just the 15 genes? You should generate a PCA bi-plot using all genes. Using the 15 genes, I would generate a heatmap.
No. you get it wrong. i had more. but 15 of them had the best pvalue and fold changes. and 10 of them were had very good related to my subject of interest. i know it is un usual. but this is what i want to know. Why even this results supposed to be wrong, it seems like a logical answer
Your p-values are meaningless, and your fold changes might be nonsense, because you have no replicates.
I got results, i got 15 Gene differentiated and those genes are related to my subject which was Drug resistance.
As a general rule in this type of analysis, I would be more inclined to worry about your PC1 explaining 98% of variance rather than PC2 being at 2%. Setting some exotic explanations aside, this means that 1 or 2 of your features explain almost all differences between the datasets. Maybe it will be more clear when you explain the procedure further, but in my experience PC1 is rarely at 98% or even close.