Difference between revisions of "Module 1: Is the hourglass model for gene expression really supported by the data?"

Line 5: Line 5:
 
* Key claim of the paper: "Gene expression follows the so-called hour-glass pattern observed for morphological features of development, which are most similar to each other in the phylotypic stage in mid-development."  
 
* Key claim of the paper: "Gene expression follows the so-called hour-glass pattern observed for morphological features of development, which are most similar to each other in the phylotypic stage in mid-development."  
  
* Data and Code: [[Media:danio_age_index.txt.zip]] [[Media:ProcessedMicroarrayData.txt]]
+
* Data and Code: [[Media:danio_age_index.txt.zip]] [[Media:ProcessedMicroarrayData.txt.zip]]
 
    
 
    
 
* Schedule:  
 
* Schedule:  

Revision as of 14:09, 15 November 2017

  • Title: "Is the hourglass model for gene expression really supported by the data?"
  • Paper to be examined: “A phylogenetically based transcriptome age index mirrors ontogenetic divergence patterns”, Nature 9;468(7325):815-8 (2010)[1]
  • Key claim of the paper: "Gene expression follows the so-called hour-glass pattern observed for morphological features of development, which are most similar to each other in the phylotypic stage in mid-development."
  • Schedule:
    • H1: General introduction to the paper/motivation (slides: Media:IntroductionM1.pptx)
    • H2-3: Write code to import the data and start computing transcriptome age index (TAI)
    • H4-6: Aim to reproduce figure 1 of the paper – help/scripts will be given if needed.
    • H7: Discussion: “Are you convinced of this result? What might have gone wrong?”
    • H8: Redo analysis using log-transformed data
    • H9: Wrap-up
  • Key bioinformatics concept of this module: "Data normalization is important and can impact the results of subsequent analyses!"