-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
WIP: ORA for RNA-seq (with WGCNA module genes) #381
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good @cansavvy!
I just have two suggestions which I left below, and a question re a warning message that pops up upon running the dotplot()
function.
Even though we'll use this package to convert from Ensembl gene IDs (`ENSEMBL`) to gene symbols (`SYMBOL`), we could just as easily use it to convert from an Ensembl transcript ID (`ENSEMBLTRANS`) to Entrez IDs (`ENTREZID`). | ||
|
||
The function we will use to map from Ensembl gene IDs to gene symbols is called `mapIds()`. | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We mapped to gene symbols in the ORA for microarray example analysis, perhaps we should map to Entrez IDs here? The reason would be to show alternate methods between the two ORA example analyses.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah! That's a good idea. Let me try that.
|
||
ORA generally requires you make some sort of arbitrary decision to obtain your genes of interest list and this is one of the approach's weaknesses -- to get to a gene list we've removed all other context. | ||
|
||
In this example, we will focus on one module, module 19, which we previously identified as differentially expressed across our time point variable. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We will likely want to show how we identified module 19 here or point to where we previously identified module 19 as differentially expressed across the time point variable. If possible, adding a chunk or two to identify the module of interest before we get to this step would be ideal (if it is not too complex for this use case).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I was trying to be brief and not get bogged down too much in the details of the previous analysis, but I will add more than just this Lol.
The `enrichplot::dotplot()` function will only plot gene sets that are significant according to the multiple testing corrected p values (in the `p.adjust` column) and the `pvalueCutoff` you provided in the [`enricher()` step](#run-ora-using-the-enricher-function). | ||
|
||
```{r} | ||
enrich_plot <- enrichplot::dotplot(kegg_ora_results) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Any idea why the following message is showing up at this step?
## wrong orderBy parameter; set to default orderBy = "x"
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Oh I see it. Hmm...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is an error that is known in this version of enrichplot: YuLab-SMU/enrichplot#22
It looks like if we bumped up to a more recent version we may not have this problem. The users may not encounter this issue depending on what version they install.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Because it doesn't show up in the render and users may not encounter it and it doesn't seem to affect the plot, I'm inclined to let this one go. But it was good to look into. 👍
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Great -- thanks for clear indication of what's identical / to be reviewed.
In terms of big picture Qs you asked:
Overall I like the similarity between ORA with microarray and RNA-seq. I like your idea to keep the existing plots and file an issue to return in future rounds of changes. Using the set of detected genes seems right to me, and there could even be a little explanation in that section to say that by not testing genes that are not in our data, we can avoid having a too-conservative adjusted p-value (right?).
See minor comments below! 🎉
Don't need this anymore. #395 is merged. |
Analysis Purpose
Add an "RNA-seq" version of ORA pathway analysis.
#344
Pull Request Stage
This is a Draft PR - needs review of big concepts and outline.
To help reviewers save time, I'm using slightly different tags to alert you to the few places that have changed in this module so far.
**IDENTICAL TO MICROARRAY EXAMPLE**
means that until a different tag shows up, all the info there is 99% the same as the microarray example. Any differences I put in parenthesis like**IDENTICAL TO MICROARRAY EXAMPLE** (except microarray. --> rnaseq)
**REVIEW**
doesn't mean it's 100% polished, but it does mean that it differs from the microarray example.Strategy
So far, not much has changed from the microarray example to the RNA-seq example besides using the WGCNA gene modules instead of a DGE results table. Note that for the purposes of this Draft PR, the descriptions are completely polished yet, but wanted to get some feedback on the larger steps and see if there's anything we want to change.
Concerns/Questions for reviewers:
What I want to know from this Draft PR is what do we want to change from microarray? Related to #223.
Another idea, if we are okay with what is here, and given the other
before going live
examples we want to get to and that steps here are fine, perhaps we leave these steps as is and file an issue about us coming back if we have inspiration about how to show something different with ORA later?Analysis Pull Request Check List (roughly in order):
Content checks
{{BLANKS}}
have been replaced with the correct content.Formatting Checks
Add datasets to S3
Docker/Snakemake rendering components
.html
link to the navigation bar.