Hi, I'm applying your tool so usefully and now I'm reviewing from the beginning since I have very robust outcome.
I'm not a statistician but a biologist applying bioinformatic tools/data analysis, so please let me know if it is related with specific statistic principles :) I'll study that for reviewing my data.
After correcting batch effect, I got a corrected taxa count file, and I find out that pretty many taxa which didn't show detected reads in original files are detected in the corrected taxa file.
Same as in your Vignette manual (https://wdl2459.github.io/ConQuR/ConQuR.Vignette.html), Acetitomaculum does exist in 277 sample only in preview, but after correction, all 5 samples in preview get to have reads of the species. How can they have "non-detected" reads in original file? In my point of view, no matter correcting batch effects or confounder effect, it is not detected in real data, and how can they just pop up from nowhere?
Hi, I'm applying your tool so usefully and now I'm reviewing from the beginning since I have very robust outcome.
I'm not a statistician but a biologist applying bioinformatic tools/data analysis, so please let me know if it is related with specific statistic principles :) I'll study that for reviewing my data.
After correcting batch effect, I got a corrected taxa count file, and I find out that pretty many taxa which didn't show detected reads in original files are detected in the corrected taxa file.
Same as in your Vignette manual (https://wdl2459.github.io/ConQuR/ConQuR.Vignette.html), Acetitomaculum does exist in 277 sample only in preview, but after correction, all 5 samples in preview get to have reads of the species. How can they have "non-detected" reads in original file? In my point of view, no matter correcting batch effects or confounder effect, it is not detected in real data, and how can they just pop up from nowhere?