Hi community,
I would like to know your opinions about the correlation I obtained between qPCR and RNA-seq for 8 genes, being two of them reference genes. The r2 is good but I worry that qPCR FC are not as high as in RNAseq. It could be:
- Normalisation bias in RNAseq analysis: normalisation was performed because ex-vivo sample had 40% of eukaryotic RNA.
- Bias in library preparation, PCR step
- Other
Here are the correlation analysis and the technical analysis result:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8-ZAuZe8jldQnEzcThkOXlkNWc/edit?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8-ZAuZe8jldYmZaSnZxMFRuVWs/edit?usp=sharing
Thanks for your help. Best, Bernardo
Thanks cwarden45, I had three technical replicates/sample in the qPCR but no biological ones neither in qPCR or RNAseq. I worry that qPCR FC are not as high as in RNAseq.
Microarray fold-change values tend to be lower than RNA-Seq and qPCR fold-change values. I haven't seen a consistent trend for qPCR versus RNA-Seq: I think it depends upon your primer design.
I would use IGV to visualize the read coverage to make sure that the areas overlapping your primers have decent coverage.
Other than that, I don't know what to suggest beyond using replicates to tell which genes significantly vary between groups. I would typically use |fold-change| > 1.5 and FDR < 0.05 to identify differential expressed RNA-Seq genes (for qPCR, you can use p-value instead of FDR if you just look at a handful of genes to validate). It only looks like there is one gene that fails to meet the fold-change criteria in both RNA-Seq and qPCR, and validating 5 out of 6 genes would be good. If the results were always identical, you wouldn't need to do qPCR validation in the first place.