Content-Length: 32726 | pFad | http://support.bioconductor.org/p/9160709/

Crossover design with limma
Crossover design with limma
1
0
Entering edit mode
@mgierlinski-7369
Last seen 6 days ago
United Kingdom

I have a proteomics experiment I want to analyse with limma. It is a crossover design. Each subject received a treatment over the two periods, separated by a washout interval. Some subjects received the drug in the first period and placebo in the second, some the other way round. Samples were collected at the start and end of each period, so there are 4 samples from each subject. For example, subject 1 received drug during the first period and placebo during the second period and the four samples from this subject represent the effect of the baseline, drug, baseline, and placebo.

The purpose of the experiment is to see the effect of the drug, as compared to the placebo.

This is the treatment allocation for the first 4 subjects (there are more in the actual dataset):

> meta
   subject period course order    treatment
   <fct>   <fct>  <fct>  <chr>    <chr>    
 1 1       P1     start  DrugPlac baseline 
 2 1       P1     end    DrugPlac drug     
 3 1       P2     start  DrugPlac baseline 
 4 1       P2     end    DrugPlac placebo  
 5 2       P1     start  PlacDrug baseline 
 6 2       P1     end    PlacDrug placebo  
 7 2       P2     start  PlacDrug baseline 
 8 2       P2     end    PlacDrug drug     
 9 3       P1     start  DrugPlac baseline 
10 3       P1     end    DrugPlac drug     
11 3       P2     start  DrugPlac baseline 
12 3       P2     end    DrugPlac placebo  
13 4       P1     start  PlacDrug baseline 
14 4       P1     end    PlacDrug placebo  
15 4       P2     start  PlacDrug baseline 
16 4       P2     end    PlacDrug drug

Following this answer from Aaron Lun I would do the following limma approach:

design_mat <- model.matrix(~ 0 + subject + treatment:order, data = meta)
design_mat <- design_mat[,!grepl("baseline", colnames(design_mat))] # get to full rank.
colnames(design_mat) <- colnames(design_mat) |>
    str_replace(":", "_")

colnames(design_mat)
[1] "subject1"                       "subject2"                       "subject3"                      
[4] "subject4"                       "subject5"                       "treatmentdrug_orderDrugPlac"   
[7] "treatmentplacebo_orderDrugPlac" "treatmentdrug_orderPlacDrug"    "treatmentplacebo_orderPlacDrug"

con <- makeContrasts(
  treatmentdrug_orderDrugPlac - treatmentdrug_orderPlacDrug,        # effect of order
  treatmentplacebo_orderDrugPlac - treatmentplacebo_orderPlacDrug,  # effect of order
  treatmentdrug_orderDrugPlac - treatmentplacebo_orderDrugPlac,     # ?
  treatmentdrug_orderPlacDrug - treatmentplacebo_orderPlacDrug,     # ?
  levels = design_mat
)

fit <- tab |>
    lmFit(design_mat) |> 
    contrasts.fit(contrasts = con) |> 
    eBayes()

If I understand this correctly, the first two contrasts would tell me if there is any effect of order (there should not be any). However, after that, I'm simply interested in the effect of the drug, while there are two contrast, each under different order.

For comparison, this answer from Aaron Lun would suggest a different approach:

design_mat <- model.matrix(~ 0 + subject:treatment + treatment:course, data = meta)
colnames(design_mat)
 [1] "subject1:treatmentbaseline"  "subject2:treatmentbaseline"  "subject3:treatmentbaseline" 
 [4] "subject4:treatmentbaseline"  "subject5:treatmentbaseline"  "subject1:treatmentdrug"     
 [7] "subject2:treatmentdrug"      "subject3:treatmentdrug"      "subject4:treatmentdrug"     
[10] "subject5:treatmentdrug"      "subject1:treatmentplacebo"   "subject2:treatmentplacebo"  
[13] "subject3:treatmentplacebo"   "subject4:treatmentplacebo"   "subject5:treatmentplacebo"  
[16] "treatmentbaseline:courseend" "treatmentdrug:courseend"     "treatmentplacebo:courseend"

This is even more difficult to understand.

I'm confused here. In "normal" experiments I only use interaction terms to see if there is an emergent effect of two different variables, but these variables are always included in the model. The approaches suggested above use interaction terms only, which is new to me. Yes, I know I should check for the effect of the placebo-drug order. But how do I do the drug-placebo comparison? The simplest approach would be:

design_mat <- model.matrix(~ subject + treatment, data = meta)
colnames(design_mat)
[1] "(Intercept)"      "subject2"         "subject3"         "subject4"         "subject5"         "treatmentdrug"   
[7] "treatmentplacebo"

which takes subjects into account and gives me directly the effect of the drug and placebo over the baseline. But I feel like I'm missing some of the experiment's design complexity here.

Any other ideas how to approach this design?

limma crossover • 566 views
ADD COMMENT
1
Entering edit mode

IMHO, here are the missing annotations

treatmentdrug_orderDrugPlac - treatmentplacebo_orderDrugPlac,     # effect of drug for the DrugPlac order
treatmentdrug_orderPlacDrug - treatmentplacebo_orderPlacDrug,     # effect of drug for the PlacDrug order

If those two contrasts seem similar (maybe plotting their corresponding lfc) and, in the end, we consider there is no difference due to the ordering, I would suggest to group them by adding this contrast to makeContrasts

((treatmentdrug_orderDrugPlac - treatmentplacebo_orderDrugPlac) + (treatmentdrug_orderPlacDrug - treatmentplacebo_orderPlacDrug))/2,     # effect of drug for the PlacDrug order

My two cents.

ADD REPLY
2
Entering edit mode
@gordon-smyth
Last seen 25 minutes ago
WEHI, Melbourne, Australia

Your experiment is somewhat more elaborate than a classical crossover design because of the period-specific baseline controls. The analyses you have proposed so far are not completely correct. I would take a simpler and more direct approach.

I would first setup the subject and baseline order effects:

design <- model.matrix(~subject+period)

Then add the period-specific drug and placebo effects:

P1.placebo <- (period=="P1" & treatment=="placebo")
P2.placebo <- (period=="P2" & treatment=="placebo")
P1.drug    <- (period=="P1" & treatment=="drug")
P2.drug    <- (period=="P2" & treatment=="drug")
design <- cbind(design,P1.placebo,P2.placebo,P1.drug,P2.drug)

This model will give you the placebo and treatment effects, relative to background, when administered in either the first or second periods.

You can then form the contrasts:

DrugvsPlaceboGivenFirst  <- P1.drug - P2.placebo
DrugvsPlaceboGivenSecond <- P2.drug - P1.placebo
DrugvsPlaceboOverall     <- (P1.drug+P2.drug)/2 - (P1.placebo+P2.placebo)/2

This is all explicit and (I hope) easy to understand.

ADD COMMENT
0
Entering edit mode

Thank you for your answer. It is an interesting solution. I've never though of modifying the design matrix itself - I always try to have a metadata table with important variables and then build a formula using these variables. I don't think it is possible here. I could create a new variable by concatenating period and treatment, but it would have two baseline levels, "P1_baseline" and "P2_baseline", so a model with this variable would not work in a way you suggested. I will follow your solution.

ADD REPLY

Login before adding your answer.

Traffic: 622 users visited in the last hour
Help About
FAQ
Access RSS
API
Stats

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.

Powered by the version 2.3.6








ApplySandwichStrip

pFad - (p)hone/(F)rame/(a)nonymizer/(d)eclutterfier!      Saves Data!


--- a PPN by Garber Painting Akron. With Image Size Reduction included!

Fetched URL: http://support.bioconductor.org/p/9160709/

Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy