Dear community,
I am wondering about the 'correct' approach for my differential gene expression analysis using DESeq2.
Background: I am dealing with the following set of 48 samples: plant material sampled at four developmental stages with four different tissues. Each stage_x_tissue combination was sequenced with three biological replicates. I am interested in the differential expression of genes between different stages (for each tissue; time series), as well as the differences between tissues (at each particular stage).
As the samples have quite diverse transcriptome profiles, I am not sure which of the following approaches is the more appropriate:
1) Subsetting the data before the analysis and doing a loop of only pair-wise comparisons: e.g. 'stage 1 | tissue 1' vs. 'stage 2 | tissue 1'
dds <- DESeqDataSetFromMatrix(countData = cts, colData = meta, design = ~ subset)
or
2) Analysing all samples together by defining groups based on a linear combination of 'stage' x 'tissue' and using contrasts
dds <- DESeqDataSetFromMatrix(countData = cts, colData = meta, design = ~ group)
With both approaches I get similar results - very significant p-values with approx. 2,300 DEGs (p-value fdr < 0.01 & |log2FC| > 2) and an overlap of approx. 85% of the identified DEGs between the two approaches.
However, what unsettles me is that the dispersion estimates look quite different. For the pairwise comparison with only 6 samples at a time (Fig.1), the estimates are shrunken, as I would expect, but the ~ group approach with all 48 samples results in estimates nearly not shrunken at all (Fig.2)?
Thank you very much in advance for the feedback and advice!
Best regards, D
I'm interested in an answer to this also, I could be way off here, but my thinking is I would separate this into 2 separate differential expression analyses.
As you said it yourself: 1) I am interested in the differential expression of genes between different stages (for each tissue; time series),
2) as well as the differences between tissues (at each particular stage)
Not sure if combining it all into one is a good idea. Also, a PCA may help if you do stick with this plan.
Looking forward to reading what the more experienced suggest.