Dear all,
'd like to have you suggestions please about the adequate "controls" when performing genome-wide analysis. For example, let's consider 1000 UP_REGULATED genes with increased PROTEIN X and HISTONE MARK Y (on the gene promoters or enhancers):
in order to show that PROTEIN X is related to HISTONE MARK Y for 1000 UP-regulated genes, what "controls" would you use for comparison :
-- 1000 RANDOM GENES
-- 1000 UP-REG GENES with NO PROTEIN X, NO HISTONE MARK Y
-- 1000 UP-REG GENES with PROTEIN X, and NO HISTONE MARK Y
-- 1000 UP-REG GENES with NO PROTEIN X, and with HISTONE MARK Y
-- 1000 NOT-UP-REG GENES with NO PROTEIN X, NO HISTONE MARK Y
-- 1000 NOT-UP-REG GENES with PROTEIN X, and NO HISTONE MARK Y
-- 1000 NOT-UP-REG GENES with NO PROTEIN X, and with HISTONE MARK Y
-- anything else ?
thanks a lot,
-- bogdan
Cross-posted:
https://support.bioconductor.org/p/128828/
https://bioinformatics.stackexchange.com/questions/11571/a-package-with-randomization-permutation-tests-for-genomic-analyses
I am not your judge but just saying: I find this disrespectful. You ask the members to invest effort in three separate communities while focusing information in a single thread should be the way to go here. This avoids double-effort and people might adjust their answers depending on other comments and answers. This is how a community typically works.
Thank you for your suggestions. I apologize if anyone felt uncomfortable : I was just willing to learn from everyone ;)
Yeah, this is exactly what you wrote on the last thread that was cross-posted to three different communities. Don't be surprised if you get no answers at all if you keep annoying people with this behaviour.
oh, well, sometime there is work pressure to get the work done ... My apologies, again ...
Cross posting is fine if:
On top of duplicating the effort from multiple users, asking the same Q on all sites within short period of time is "spamming".