Question: Different results between papers and GEO2R
0
gravatar for cagdas
6 months ago by
cagdas10
cagdas10 wrote:

Hi,

I performed a DE miRNAs analyses via GEO2R for https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/geo2r/?acc=GSE78775. I obtained an upregulation for miR-148a in tumors compared with normal. When I search miR-148a in Pubmed, unfortunately a lot of paper say it is downregulated (in exp., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4982598/). Could you help me to interpret the GEO2R results or re-perform the analyses according to your codes / softwares, please?

Thanks

geo2r microarray • 240 views
ADD COMMENTlink modified 6 months ago by ATpoint44k • written 6 months ago by cagdas10
1

May sound trivial but did you confirm the comparison order of the classes/groups in your analysis?

ADD REPLYlink modified 6 months ago • written 6 months ago by GenoMax94k

Yes, I confirmed it, no problem...

ADD REPLYlink written 6 months ago by cagdas10

There is something strange happening. You may have to contact the authors:

library(Biobase)
library(GEOquery)

# load series and platform data from GEO
gset <- getGEO("GSE78775", GSEMatrix =TRUE, getGPL=FALSE)
if (length(gset) > 1) idx <- grep("GPL10850", attr(gset, "names")) else idx <- 1
gset <- gset[[idx]]

rownames(gset)[grep('miR-148a', rownames(gset))]
[1] "hsa-miR-148a"  "hsa-miR-148a*"

data <- data.frame(
  Tissue = pData(gset)[,'tissue:ch1'],
  miR148a = exprs(gset)[grep('miR-148a', rownames(gset)),][1,])
head(data)
           Tissue  miR148a
GSM2076383  tumor 7.218001
GSM2076384 normal 5.356292
GSM2076385  tumor 9.058600
GSM2076386 normal 6.050635
GSM2076387  tumor 7.393683
GSM2076388 normal 5.517655


par(mfrow = c(1,2))
boxplot(miR148a ~ Tissue, data, main = 'miR-148')
data <- data.frame(
  Tissue = pData(gset)[,'tissue:ch1'],
  miR148a = exprs(gset)[grep('miR-148a', rownames(gset)),][2,])
head(data)
           Tissue     miR148a
GSM2076383  tumor 0.053578910
GSM2076384 normal 0.026429820
GSM2076385  tumor 0.032966353
GSM2076386 normal 0.002947842
GSM2076387  tumor 0.014932436
GSM2076388 normal 0.025117474

boxplot(miR148a ~ Tissue, data, main = 'miR-148*')

kkk

ADD REPLYlink modified 6 months ago • written 6 months ago by Kevin Blighe69k
1

Kevin thank you for your detailed reply.

ADD REPLYlink written 6 months ago by cagdas10

Also following paper had found a downregulation. What can be the problem Kevin? https://www.nature.com/articles/s10038-020-0746-6

ADD REPLYlink written 6 months ago by cagdas10

Not for me to follow-up - I would clarify with the authors. This miR is clearly up-regulated in tumor, judging by the box-and-whiskers plot (above). Perhaps the authors are segregating by sex|gender, though (?)

ADD REPLYlink written 6 months ago by Kevin Blighe69k

They may have made a mistake with their metadata - not sure.

ADD REPLYlink written 6 months ago by Kevin Blighe69k

Even in their published work (Paper), they stated that this miRNA is down-regulated in GC patients. I believe they mixed the samples between tumor and normal when uploaded to GEO . As the others mentioned, best to check with author.

ADD REPLYlink modified 6 months ago • written 6 months ago by fernardo 130
Please log in to add an answer.

Help
Access

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.
Powered by Biostar version 2.3.0
Traffic: 1421 users visited in the last hour