Question: Deconvolution methods on RNAseq data
gravatar for Ron
16 months ago by
United States
Ron740 wrote:

Hi all,

This question is similar to this post. C: Deconvolution Methods on RNA-Seq Data (Mixed cell types)

I have been using CIBERSORT and DeconRNAseq, but both of them give different results.

  1. Does anyone know of other cell type signatures besides LM22 from CIBERSORT which has only 22 cell types? Signatures that could include fibroblasts etc besides the 22 cells provided in LM22.

  2. Also,are there any other tools for RNAseq besides CIBERSORT and DeconRNAseq?

  3. Are there any softwares which consider other factors into account such as tumor purity before doing deconvolution?



ADD COMMENTlink modified 7 weeks ago by colonppg50 • written 16 months ago by Ron740

NB that the authors of CIBERSORT warn against using it on RNAseq (from their webpage):

LM22 was designed and validated on gene expression microarray data, specifically on the following platforms: Affy U133A/Plus2 and Illumina Expression BeadChip (HumanHT-12 v4). Users wishing to apply LM22 to other array platforms (e.g. Agilent single or two-color) or to RNA-Seq data should be forewarned that LM22 has not been validated for these platforms, and the results may not be reliable.

We are in the process of deriving an immune subset signature matrix for RNA-Seq and will inform registered users when it becomes available.

ADD REPLYlink written 15 months ago by bruce.moran410

Are you still working on getting LM22 signature?

ADD REPLYlink written 14 months ago by Ron740

This is a quote from the CIBERSORT webpage, so I am not generating an RNAseq-based LM22 signature myself, no.

ADD REPLYlink written 13 months ago by bruce.moran410
gravatar for colonppg
7 weeks ago by
United States
colonppg50 wrote:

In my opinion the cybersort is not really reliable, this is particularly true for those cell types of low abundance:

essentially we want to use a gene, or a set of genes to represent the abundancy of a particular cell type, however, for the result to be reliable, those genes should be:

  1. Have very high expression in the particular cell type it represents
  2. No expression in other cell types

missing one of the two the result will be a joke... if you check their signature on reliable datasets, you will figure out it is a joke...

actually, I have been eyeing the whole cybersort and other "signature" methods as a joke as they just help the academics to publish papers based on shitty results without solving any real problem

ADD COMMENTlink modified 7 weeks ago • written 7 weeks ago by colonppg50

There is also a good Twitter thread that echoes much of this:

ADD REPLYlink written 27 days ago by igor6.2k
gravatar for shauty
15 months ago by
shauty0 wrote:

Hi, I just stumbled across this . What's your experience with CIBERSROT? When I tried CIBERSORT I got only 16 results with p-value<0.05 from 75 cancer RNA seq samples.

ADD COMMENTlink written 15 months ago by shauty0
Please log in to add an answer.


Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.
Powered by Biostar version 2.3.0
Traffic: 1077 users visited in the last hour