[BioC] Using DESeq normalized gene count to replace FPKM?
Simon Anders
anders at embl.de
Wed Jul 24 09:49:56 CEST 2013
Hi Jack
On 23/07/13 17:29, Jike Cui wrote:
> A few papers have concluded that DESeq is more accurate for DE genes
> discovery than methods using FPKM, and that the bias in FPKM is that a
> gene’s FPKM depends on the expression of other genes due to the division by
> library size.
>
> Now if my purpose is for visualization or analysis other than looking for
> DEGs, I wonder if it’s better to replace FPKM by DESeq normalized gene
> count divided by gene length?
Yes, definitely.
Look at it this way: To account for sequencing depth, you divide the raw
counts by a number which quantifies this depth. Simply using the total
number of reads (divided by 1 million) is an obvious but very simplistic
choice, and the various other scaling normalization schemes (our
median-of-ratios approach from DESeq, but also other similar suggestions
such as TMM, etc.) are simply meant to suggest a more clever way to find
a number to divide by.
In case of DESeq, we try to get this numbers to be close to one. If you
want to have the same scale as typical FPKM values (and so have better
comparability across experiments), you could then divide everything by
something like
geometric mean of the total read counts of all samples / 1 million
You may want to look, though, also at the variance-stabilizing
transformation (VST) and the regularized log transformation (rlog) that
we offer in DESeq2, and which, we feel, offers a better input for
downstream visualization.
Simon
More information about the Bioconductor
mailing list