1
$\begingroup$

We are working on a bioinformatics problem. We have a collection (say $U$) of kmers or small substrings of length $k$ of some set of sequences. We have two different experiments. Only a subset of kmers say, $A,B \subseteq U$, is enriched in each of the two experiments, respectively. We want to show $A \cap B$ is statistically significant.

We were trying to use Fisher's exact test (FET) on a contingency table with entries $|A \cap B|, |A \setminus B|, |B \setminus A|, |U \setminus (A \cup B)|$. But it seems that this FET has the null hypothesis: “probability of a kmer getting enriched is same in the two experiments”.

However, for our purpose it should be the alternate hypothesis.

Is there a different way to use FET for our purpose?

$\endgroup$
10
  • $\begingroup$ Not a categorical data expert, so this is in a comment. You've hit a core issue in null-hypothesis significance testing. I think you could get at what you want by combining a permutation test with a two one-sided test approach. You have a two-part null: Determine a difference in probabilities that would be substantively meaningful, and the null is that the population difference is greater than that in either direction. Then use a permutation test and use the resulting distribution to establish whether the null(s) can be rejected. $\endgroup$ May 29, 2018 at 16:45
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you @PatrickMalone. I am quite new in statistical significance testing. Could you please point me to some examples where this approach of combining permutation test and two one-sided test has been applied? $\endgroup$
    – Soumitra
    May 29, 2018 at 17:16
  • $\begingroup$ If I get you right, you must have 2x2 frequency table with sides A (1 vs 0) and B (1 vs 0). Cell (1,1) collects k-mers which belong to both A and B. You want to test that frequency f in (1,1) is bigger than expected there under randomness (that would be f_in_row1*f_in_col1 / f_total). So, you test that the residual in (1,1) is significantly positive. But in your situation of 2x2 table an increase in (1,1) automatically means same-size inrease in (0,0) and same decrease in (1,0) and (0,1), because marginal totals are fixed. $\endgroup$
    – ttnphns
    May 29, 2018 at 18:56
  • $\begingroup$ (cont.) Therefore sig. testing of cell (1,1) is equivalent to testing any of the 4 cells, i.e. to testing all the table for the sig. of association/independence. It could be chi-square test, but you preferred Fisher exact test. It is all right. I don't see why you are in doubts. $\endgroup$
    – ttnphns
    May 29, 2018 at 18:57
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry, I'm just speculating here. $\endgroup$ May 29, 2018 at 19:09

0

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.