Hi: Apologies for asking the following question. As?this may sound very basic and stupid for this forum?, I honestly do not know how to solve it and I do not have a teacher who can help me understand. ? I have list of genes (200)?that are involved in a particular process and I call this as a?ProcSet.?? From an independent experiment I found that out of 10,000 genes, 1500 are significant and I call these1500 genes as ResultSet.?? ? The intersection of ResultSet and ProcSet are 80 genes.? ? That means 40% of ProcSet are significant.? ? ?How do I calculate that 40% is significant and more than I expect by chance given ResultSet and 10,000 genes I evaluated in the experiment. ? What I have: n = 200 (ProcSet) p = 0.4 ? N = 1500? (ResultSet) ? N1 =10,000? ? Pn = 0.15 ? What kind of test will help me know that 0.4 is significant given 0.15. Any suggestions will greatly help me. ? Thank you. Srini
Hi Srini, This is a statistics question, not a question about R, so this may not be the best place to ask. Try posting at stats.stackexchange.com or another statistics help list. Best, Ista On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Srinivas Iyyer <srini_iyyer_bio at yahoo.com> wrote:> Hi: > Apologies for asking the following question. As this may sound very basic and stupid for this forum , I honestly do not know how to solve it and I do not have a teacher who can help me understand. > > I have list of genes (200) that are involved in a particular process and I call this as a ProcSet. From an independent experiment I found that out of 10,000 genes, 1500 are significant and I call these1500 genes as ResultSet. > > The intersection of ResultSet and ProcSet are 80 genes. > > That means 40% of ProcSet are significant. > > How do I calculate that 40% is significant and more than I expect by chance given ResultSet and 10,000 genes I evaluated in the experiment. > > What I have: > n = 200 (ProcSet) > p = 0.4 > > N = 1500 (ResultSet) > > N1 =10,000 > > Pn = 0.15 > > What kind of test will help me know that 0.4 is significant given 0.15. Any suggestions will greatly help me. > > Thank you. > Srini > > ______________________________________________ > R-help at r-project.org mailing list > stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help > PLEASE do read the posting guide R-project.org/posting-guide.html > and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
Hello Srini, It sounds as if you are attempting to establish a prior probability and compare it to the posterior probability -- a perfect candidate for bayesian analysis. I would simply do a search for 'bayesian analysis of gene expression data' -- there are a number of statistical packages that are available. A number of R packages are available as well as a software package from Yale: yale.edu/townsend/Software/BAGELTutorial.html Hope this helps, James On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Srinivas Iyyer <srini_iyyer_bio@yahoo.com>wrote:> Hi: > Apologies for asking the following question. As this may sound very basic > and stupid for this forum , I honestly do not know how to solve it and I do > not have a teacher who can help me understand. > > I have list of genes (200) that are involved in a particular process and I > call this as a ProcSet. From an independent experiment I found that out > of 10,000 genes, 1500 are significant and I call these1500 genes as > ResultSet. > > The intersection of ResultSet and ProcSet are 80 genes. > > That means 40% of ProcSet are significant. > > How do I calculate that 40% is significant and more than I expect by > chance given ResultSet and 10,000 genes I evaluated in the experiment. > > What I have: > n = 200 (ProcSet) > p = 0.4 > > N = 1500 (ResultSet) > > N1 =10,000 > > Pn = 0.15 > > What kind of test will help me know that 0.4 is significant given 0.15. > Any suggestions will greatly help me. > > Thank you. > Srini > > ______________________________________________ > R-help@r-project.org mailing list > stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help > PLEASE do read the posting guide > R-project.org/posting-guide.html > and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code. >-- *James C. Whanger* * * *"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." Mark Twain* [[alternative HTML version deleted]]