Differences between lfc=log2(1.5) and lcf=1.5
1
2
Entering edit mode
2.9 years ago
Joe Kherery ▴ 110

Dears,

What is the difference between lfc=log2(1.5) and lcf=1.5 ?

topTable <- topTable(fit, coef=1, number=Inf, adjust.method="BH", **lfc=1.5**)

Which is the correct one to use and why?

Another question is what cut-off to use???

I see many articles using |log2fold change (FC)|≥1.5 and others using |log2fold change (FC)|≥1.0? with a Q-value < 0.05.

If you can tell me a reference about it, I will be grateful

Regards,

r limma microarray • 2.4k views
ADD COMMENT
4
Entering edit mode
2.9 years ago
h.mon 32k

What is the difference between lfc=log2(1.5) and lcf=1.5 ?

If you are asking about which one to use in topTable, the correct is topTable( ..., lfc = 1.5 ), as the fold-changes reported (and used for thresholding) are already log2(FC). However, topTable should not be used, and topTreat is to be preferred - read the topTreat manual page with ?topTreat.

As for "correct" threshold, my view is that there isn't one. It is of course necessary to control for false-positive discovery, hence the q-value of 0.05 (or lower). But for fold-changes, I guess it depends on if one is interested in all changes, or only big changes in expression.

One of the benefits of using log2(FC) is that the values are intuitive: a log2(FC) of one means one treatment has double the expression of the other; a log2(FC) of 2 means one treatment is 4 times more expressed than the other, and so on. However, using log2(FC) = 1.5 means one treatment is approximately 2.828428 times more expressed than the other - as for arbitrary thresholds go, you can't go much more arbitrary than this.

ADD COMMENT

Login before adding your answer.

Traffic: 1180 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