Question: how to calculate the log FC for -1.5 fold change?
gravatar for Calangoa
2.5 years ago by
Calangoa30 wrote:

Hi there, I have 6 microarray data sets that I think FDR<0.05 and fold change >1.5 and <-1.5 for up- and dw-regulated genes respectively are the best (based on Mark R Dalman et al paper) but after normalization with R packages, we have log transformation of fold changes and I know if log FC is 2 it means 4 fold change for gene expression. and logFC -1= FC 0.5. it means, we don't have negative measure for fold change in statistic but have in biology. what is the similar value of FC -1.5 for log FC? (?logFC=FC-1.5)

Thanks in advance

next-gen • 6.0k views
ADD COMMENTlink modified 2.5 years ago by h.mon32k • written 2.5 years ago by Calangoa30

So if log2FC = log2(FC), to get the FC you have to do FC = 2^log2(FC). So if your log2FC is -1.5 you have to compute 2^-1.5

ADD REPLYlink written 2.5 years ago by Martombo2.7k
gravatar for h.mon
2.5 years ago by
h.mon32k wrote:

When we use fold-change as ratios of expression, values are bound between [0, +Inf], hence a value of -1.5 fold-change is impossible. Also, the scale is centered at 1, meaning up-regulation are values greater than 1, and down-regulation are values smaller than one. A fold-change of 2 and a fold-change of 0.5 have the same magnitude: both means one sample has double the expression of the other. This way of interpreting fold-changes have two drawbacks: fold-changes are centered around one, and they are not symmetrical.

By transforming to log2( fold-change ), values are now centered at zero, and they are symmetrical: -1 and 1 indicate the same magnitude of change, down or up.

So both ways are showing the same thing, but log2( fold-change ) are more convenient.

ADD COMMENTlink written 2.5 years ago by h.mon32k

Many thanks h.mon so you mean log2 (fold change) for cut-off is more better and it is symmetrical. so, I suppose FC=0.667(1/1.5) show down-regulation of gene about 1.5 fold since log 0.667 and log 1.5 show near - and +0.58 (symmetrically).

ADD REPLYlink written 2.5 years ago by Calangoa30
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: 1480 users visited in the last hour