CutNtag normalization without spike in
0
0
Entering edit mode
5 months ago
gamma.jian ▴ 40

I am dealing with analyzing a set of cutNtag samples in which we expect global histone mark changes (K27me3) due to perturbation in a chromatin modifier. Unfortunately, for a series of experimental challenges, we do not have spike-ins.

For this reason, I am looking for other ways to normalize this data, as RPKM normalization based on library size will flatten out the expected global shift. From my understanding, this is quite challenging.

What I tried so far:

At this point, I don't know if I should trust the counter-intuitive results I got, search for other methods, or else. Any advice is appreciated, Best

cutNtag csaw ChIPseq diffBind • 887 views
ADD COMMENT
1
Entering edit mode

The first thing I would do is to normalize a bigwig track by reeds per million and just look at the data in the igv. Does global changes in your case mean that you expect generally more/fewer sites that show signal for this histone mark or does it mean that existing peaks with this histone mark have higher/lower counts compared to control? Can you show an MA plot if you simply use the default normalization strategy for example as in DESeq2 or edgeR, as often this plot gives a good idea which normalization might be appropriate. Please also add a screenshot from the igv from a locus that you think is representative (like a 100kb or so stretch).

ADD REPLY
0
Entering edit mode

Thank you for the follow-up. Here is an example locus after normalizing with RPKM using deeptools bamCoverage. In theory, I expect changes in peaks that already exist in the WT rather than having new peaks or losing some of them. This locus behaves as expected, but many others do not (I see stability and opposite trends too).

For the MA plot, could you clarify if I should do it for consensus peaks, fixed genomic bins, or else? I will do it next.

KO (red) and WT (blue)

ADD REPLY
0
Entering edit mode

Consensus peaks I would use for now.

ADD REPLY
0
Entering edit mode

enter image description here

This is the result of running DiffBind standard pipeline with MACS2 broadPeaks. I have 2 WT + (4+2) KO samples. The MA plot is done on the contrast KO vs WT, and a total of ~150k peaks were identified (it should be the union of the consensus if I got this right). This plot suggests very mild changes, am I correct?

ADD REPLY
0
Entering edit mode

I guess this is DESeq2 sheunken logFCs which are moderated towards zero when noise is high and/or power is low (or simply no DEGs exist). What is your sample size?

ADD REPLY
0
Entering edit mode

My sample size is 2 WT samples and 4+2 KO samples. So yeah the sample size in the control group is very low. Do you suggest trying other normalization methods instead? Maybe edgeR?

ADD REPLY
0
Entering edit mode

This is the result using the DBA_EDGER mode.

enter image description here

ADD REPLY
0
Entering edit mode

The normalization is essentially the same, just that edgeR in DiffBInd does not as aggressively shrink the logFCs towards zero when avidence for DE is low. So, the MA-plot looks more spread out, but it's probably almost the same result, meaning very low differences. Isn't H3K27me3 very broad? Maybe some window-based approach as implemented in csaw might be of use here, but the underlying problem of underpowerment probably does not change. I mean, you see quuite some regions with fold changes beyond -1/1 but not significant. Check data in a PCA; see whether some batch effects are present and could maybe be corrected for.

ADD REPLY
1
Entering edit mode
ADD REPLY
0
Entering edit mode

Yes, I used that post as a reference and tried what suggested, thank you

ADD REPLY

Login before adding your answer.

Traffic: 2358 users visited in the last hour
Help About
FAQ
Access RSS
API
Stats

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.

Powered by the version 2.3.6