Replies: 3 comments 4 replies
-
Hello @Freemacl, Thank you for reaching out! The unusual result you've encountered is indeed puzzling. To gain a better understanding of the issue, I recommend running your microbial abundance data through the linear mixed effects model using Best regards, |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Hello! I'm also running into this same issue where my LFCs are all 0, SEs are all 0.5, W are all 0, and p/q values are 1 only when I add a random formula to the model. I was wondering if there was a solution to this yet. My sessionInfo() is found below. sessionInfo()
R version 4.2.3 (2023-03-15)
Platform: x86_64-apple-darwin17.0 (64-bit)
Running under: macOS 14.3.1
Matrix products: default
LAPACK: /Library/Frameworks/R.framework/Versions/4.2/Resources/lib/libRlapack.dylib
locale:
[1] en_US.UTF-8/en_US.UTF-8/en_US.UTF-8/C/en_US.UTF-8/en_US.UTF-8
attached base packages:
[1] stats graphics grDevices utils datasets methods base
other attached packages:
[1] ANCOMBC_2.0.3 phyloseq_1.41.1
loaded via a namespace (and not attached):
[1] readxl_1.4.3 backports_1.4.1 Hmisc_5.1-1 plyr_1.8.9 igraph_1.5.0
[6] lazyeval_0.2.2 splines_4.2.3 gmp_0.7-1 BiocParallel_1.32.6 scater_1.26.1
[11] GenomeInfoDb_1.34.9 ggplot2_3.5.0 TH.data_1.1-2 digest_0.6.34 foreach_1.5.2
[16] yulab.utils_0.1.4 htmltools_0.5.7 viridis_0.6.5 lmerTest_3.1-3 fansi_1.0.6
[21] magrittr_2.0.3 checkmate_2.3.1 memoise_2.0.1 ScaledMatrix_1.6.0 cluster_2.1.6
[26] doParallel_1.0.17 DECIPHER_2.26.0 Biostrings_2.66.0 matrixStats_1.2.0 sandwich_3.1-0
[31] colorspace_2.1-0 blob_1.2.4 ggrepel_0.9.5 rbibutils_2.2.16 xfun_0.42
[36] dplyr_1.1.4 crayon_1.5.2 RCurl_1.98-1.14 jsonlite_1.8.8 Exact_3.2
[41] lme4_1.1-35.1 survival_3.5-7 zoo_1.8-12 iterators_1.0.14 ape_5.7-1
[46] glue_1.7.0 gtable_0.3.4 zlibbioc_1.44.0 emmeans_1.10.0 XVector_0.38.0
[51] DelayedArray_0.24.0 BiocSingular_1.14.0 Rhdf5lib_1.20.0 SingleCellExperiment_1.20.1 Rmpfr_0.9-2
[56] BiocGenerics_0.44.0 scales_1.3.0 mvtnorm_1.2-4 DBI_1.2.2 rngtools_1.5.2
[61] Rcpp_1.0.12 viridisLite_0.4.2 xtable_1.8-4 htmlTable_2.4.2 decontam_1.18.0
[66] tidytree_0.4.6 rsvd_1.0.5 foreign_0.8-86 bit_4.0.5 proxy_0.4-27
[71] Formula_1.2-5 stats4_4.2.3 CVXR_1.0-12 htmlwidgets_1.6.4 httr_1.4.7
[76] scuttle_1.8.4 pkgconfig_2.0.3 nnet_7.3-19 utf8_1.2.4 tidyselect_1.2.0
[81] rlang_1.1.3 reshape2_1.4.4 munsell_0.5.0 cellranger_1.1.0 tools_4.2.3
[86] cachem_1.0.8 cli_3.6.2 DirichletMultinomial_1.40.0 RSQLite_2.3.5 generics_0.1.3
[91] mia_1.6.0 ade4_1.7-22 evaluate_0.23 biomformat_1.26.0 stringr_1.5.1
[96] fastmap_1.1.1 knitr_1.45 bit64_4.0.5 fs_1.6.3 purrr_1.0.2
[101] rootSolve_1.8.2.4 sparseMatrixStats_1.10.0 nlme_3.1-164 doRNG_1.8.6 compiler_4.2.3
[106] rstudioapi_0.15.0 beeswarm_0.4.0 e1071_1.7-14 treeio_1.22.0 tibble_3.2.1
[111] DescTools_0.99.50 stringi_1.8.3 gsl_2.1-8 lattice_0.22-5 Matrix_1.5-3
[116] nloptr_2.0.3 vegan_2.6-4 permute_0.9-7 multtest_2.54.0 vctrs_0.6.5
[121] pillar_1.9.0 lifecycle_1.0.4 rhdf5filters_1.10.1 BiocManager_1.30.22 Rdpack_2.6
[126] BiocNeighbors_1.16.0 estimability_1.4.1 irlba_2.3.5.1 data.table_1.15.0 bitops_1.0-7
[131] lmom_3.0 GenomicRanges_1.50.2 R6_2.5.1 gridExtra_2.3 vipor_0.4.7
[136] IRanges_2.32.0 gld_2.6.6 codetools_0.2-19 boot_1.3-30 energy_1.7-11
[141] MASS_7.3-60.0.1 TreeSummarizedExperiment_2.6.0 rhdf5_2.42.1 SummarizedExperiment_1.28.0 withr_3.0.0
[146] multcomp_1.4-25 S4Vectors_0.36.2 GenomeInfoDbData_1.2.9 MultiAssayExperiment_1.24.0 mgcv_1.9-1
[151] expm_0.999-7 parallel_4.2.3 beachmat_2.14.2 grid_4.2.3 rpart_4.1.23
[156] tidyr_1.3.1 coda_0.19-4.1 class_7.3-22 minqa_1.2.6 DelayedMatrixStats_1.20.0
[161] rmarkdown_2.26 MatrixGenerics_1.10.0 numDeriv_2016.8-1.1 Biobase_2.58.0 base64enc_0.1-3 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Unfortunately I did not
…On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 10:53 PM TonimaRahman ***@***.***> wrote:
@Freemacl <https://github.com/Freemacl>
Hi, did you find any solution to the problem? I have a similar dataset and
running into same problem
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#232 (reply in thread)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACCWXMPUUJYZJOBFQTO2ZW324GSFJAVCNFSM6AAAAAB4HGZ6OSVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43URDJONRXK43TNFXW4Q3PNVWWK3TUHMYTGMBQGA4TCNY>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***
com>
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
I am hoping to use ANCOMBC2 to analyse differences in my microbial community, however based on the output I'm getting, I am not sure I am properly using random effects. I have two groups of animals, vaccinated (n=19) and unvaccinated (n=8), that I sampled at 5 different time points. When I call the ANCOMBC program without the use of random effects, I do get the expected output of differentially abundant organisms that is logical enough (i.e. is consistent with other results in the project). However, when I use a random term to represent the animal ID, the output I get is exactly the same for all taxa listed (LFC = 0, se = 0.5, W= 0, p=1, diff= FALSE). Can you help me identify the problem or interpret this result?
In the code below :
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions