%\VignetteIndexEntry{Analysing RNA-Seq data with the "DESeq" package}
%\VignettePackage{DESeq}

\documentclass{article}

\usepackage{Sweave}
\usepackage[a4paper]{geometry}
\usepackage{hyperref,graphicx}

\SweaveOpts{keep.source=TRUE,eps=FALSE,include=FALSE,width=4,height=4.5} 
\newcommand{\Robject}[1]{\texttt{#1}}
\newcommand{\Rpackage}[1]{\textit{#1}}
\newcommand{\Rclass}[1]{\textit{#1}}
\newcommand{\Rfunction}[1]{{\small\texttt{#1}}}

\author{Simon Anders\\[1em]European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL),\\ Heidelberg, Germany\\[1em]
\texttt{sanders@fs.tum.de}}

\title{\textsf{\textbf{Analysing RNA-Seq data with the ``DESeq'' package}}}

\date{2010-01-19}

\begin{document}

\maketitle


\begin{abstract}
In RNA-Seq and related assay types (including comparative ChIP-Seq etc.), one 
works with tables of count data, which report, for each sample, the number of
reads that have been assigned to a gene (or other types of entities).
The package ``DESeq'' provides a powerful tool to estimate the variance in such
data and test for differential expression.\footnote{Other Bioconductor packages 
  for this use case (but employing different methods) are \Rpackage{edgeR} and \Rpackage{baySeq}.} 
The present vignette explains the use of the package; for an exposition of 
the statistical method employed, see our paper.\footnote{The companion paper for DESeq is: 
S.\ Anders, W.\ Huber: ``Differential expression analysis for sequence count data''. 
This paper is currently under review. A preprint can be obtained from Nature Preceedings: 
\url{http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/npre.2010.4282.1}}
\end{abstract}

\section{Quick start}

This first section just shows the commands necessary for an analysis at a glance. For a more gentle introduction, start reading at Section \ref{sec:prep}.

The \Rpackage{DESeq} package expects count data, as obtained, e.g., from an RNA-Seq or other 
high-throughput sequencing (HTS) experiment, in form of a matrix of integer values. Each column
corresponds to a sample, i.e., typically one run on the sequencer. Each row corresponds to entity 
for which you count hits, e.g., a gene, an exon, a binding region in ChIP-Seq, a window in CNV-Seq,
or the like. 

\emph{Important:} Each column must stem from an independent experiment or sample. If you spread sample material
from one experiment over several ``lanes'' of the sequencer in order to get better coverage, you must
sum up the counts from the lanes to get a single column. Failing to do so will result in incorrect
variance estimation and overly optimistic $p$ values

Let's say you have the counts in a matrix or data frame \texttt{countTable}, and you
further have a factor \texttt{conds} with as many element as there are
columns in \texttt{countTable} that indicates treatment groups, i.e., data in the following
form:

<<countsTable,echo=FALSE,results=hide>>=
library("DESeq")
countsTable <- read.delim(system.file("extra/TagSeqExample.tab", package="DESeq"), 
                          header=TRUE, stringsAsFactors=TRUE, row.names="gene")
conds <- factor(c("T", "T", "T", "T2", "N", "N"))
@

<<countsTable>>=
head(countsTable)
conds
@

Then, the minimal set of commands to run a full analysis is:
<<demo1>>=
cds <- newCountDataSet( countsTable, conds )
cds <- estimateSizeFactors( cds )
cds <- estimateVarianceFunctions( cds )
res <- nbinomTest( cds, "T", "N")
@
The last command tests for differential expression between the conditions labelled \texttt{"T"}
and \texttt{"N"}. It returns a data frame with $p$ values (raw and adjusted), mean values,
fold changes, and other useful information, which looks as follows:
<<res>>=
head(res)
@ 


\section{Preparations} \label{sec:prep}

As example data, we use Tag-Seq data from an experiment studying certain
human tissue culture samples, which P.\ Bertone kindly permitted us to use. As these
data are not yet published, we have obscured annotation data and will, for now, remain 
vague concerning their biological properties. 
We will amend this once Bertone and coworkers have published their paper.

They extracted mRNA from the cultures and sequenced only the 3' end of the transcripts (Tag-Seq) with
an Illumina GenomeAnalyzer, one lane per sample. They got from 6.8 to 13.6 mio reads from each lane,
which they assigned to genes. They were able to assign 30\% to 50\% of the tags unambiguously to
annotated genes and produced a table that gives these counts. A version of this table is distributed with the \Rpackage{DESeq} package as example data in a file called
``TagSeqExample.tab''. The
\Rfunction{system.file} function allows to see where R has stored the file when the package was
installed:

<<>>=
library( DESeq )
exampleFile = system.file( "extra/TagSeqExample.tab", package="DESeq" )
exampleFile
@

It is a tab-delimited file with column headers in the first line. We read it in with
<<>>=
countsTable <- read.delim( exampleFile, header=TRUE, stringsAsFactors=TRUE )
head( countsTable )
@

To obtain such a table for your own data, you will need other software; this is out of the scope of DESeq. In the course materials from the Workshops section of the Bioconductor web page, you might find further information how to do this with the \Rpackage{ShortRead} and \Rpackage{IRanges} packages.

The first column is the gene ID. (We have shuffled the table rows, removed the RefSeq IDs and replaced them with dummy identifiers of the form ``Gene\_\textit{NNNNN}''.) We use the gene IDs for the row names and remove the gene ID column:
<<>>=
rownames( countsTable ) <- countsTable$gene
countsTable <- countsTable[ , -1 ]
@ % $

We are now left with six columns, referring to the six samples. The first four (labelled
``T1a'', ``T1b'', ``T2'', and ``T3'') are from cancerous tissue, the last two (labelled
``N1'', ``N2'') are from healthy tissue and served as control. 

We code this information in the following vector, which assigns each sample a ``condition'':
<<>>=
conds <- c( "T", "T", "T", "T2", "N", "N" )
@
where ``T'' stands for a sample derived from a certain tumour type and ``N'' for a sample 
derived from non-pathological tissue. The first three samples
had a very similar histopathological phenotype, while the fourth sample was atypical, and
hence, we assign it another condition (``T2'').


We can now instantiate a \Rclass{CountDataSet}, which is the central data structure in the
\Rpackage{DESeq} package:
<<>>=
cds <- newCountDataSet( countsTable, conds )
@

The \Rclass{CountDataSet} class is derived from the \Rclass{eSet} class and so shares all
features of this standard Bioconductor class. Furthermore, accessors are provided for its data slots.
For example, the counts can be accessed with the \Rfunction{counts} function.
<<>>=
head( counts(cds) )
@

One feature derived from the \Rclass{eSet} class is the possibility to subset. We can remove
the first sample (i.e., the first column) as follows
<<>>=
cds <- cds[ ,-1 ]
@
We remove it because samples T1a and T1b were derived from the same individuum and are hence
more similar than the others. In order to keep the present example simple we continue without
sample T1a.

As first processing step, we have to estimate the effective library size. This information is called the ``size
factors'' vector, as the package only needs to now the relative library sizes. So, if a
non-differentially expressed gene produces twice as many counts in one sample than in another, the size
factor for this sample should be twice as large as the one for the other sample. You could simply use
the actual total numbers of reads and assign them to the \Robject{cds} object:
<<>>=
libsizes <- c( T1a=6843583, T1b=7604834, T2=13625570, T3=12291910,
   N1=12872125, N2=10502656 )
sizeFactors(cds) <- libsizes[-1]
@

However, one seems to get better results by estimating the size factors from the count data. The
function \Rfunction{estimateSizeFactors} does that for you. (See the man page of \Rfunction{estimateSizeFactorsForMatrix} for technical details on the calculation.)
<<>>=
cds <- estimateSizeFactors( cds )
sizeFactors( cds )
@

\section{Variance estimation}

As explained in detail in the paper, the core assumption of this method it that the mean is a good
predictor of the variance, i.e., that genes with a similar expression level also have similar
variance across replicates. Hence, we need to estimate for each condition a function that allows
to predict the variance from the mean. This estimation is done by calculating, for each gene, 
the sample mean and variance within replicates and then fitting a curve to this data.

This computation is performed by the following command.
<<>>=
cds <- estimateVarianceFunctions( cds )
@

{\footnotesize
In order to use the package, you do not need to know what precisely these raw variance functions
estimate. For the interested reader, a few extra details are given here:

The point of the variance functions is to predict how much variance one should expect
for counts at a certain level. For example, let us assume that we have found 123
tags for a certain gene in the ``T1b'' sample.
We may now calculate the expected ``raw variance'' as follows. First we get the
``base level'', by which we mean this count value divided by the size factor.
This makes the values from different columns comparable.
Then, we insert this into the raw variance function to get the estimated ``raw
variance'' which needs to be scaled up to the count level by multiplying with
the size factor (squared, because this is a variance). Once we add the expected shot-
noise variance (i.e., the variance due to the Poisson counting process), which is
equal to the count value, we get the full variance. The square root of this full
variance is then the estimated standard deviation for count values at the given level 
(provided, of course, that our fundamental assumption is right that the mean allows to get a
reasonable prediction for the variance).
<<>>=
countValue <- 123
baseLevel <- countValue / sizeFactors(cds)["T1b"]
rawVarFuncForGB <- rawVarFunc( cds, "T" )
rawVariance <- rawVarFuncForGB( baseLevel )
fullVariance <- countValue + rawVariance * sizeFactors(cds)["T1b"]^2
sqrt( fullVariance )
@

Of course, you do not have to do the calculation just outlined yourself, the package does
this automatically.
\bigskip
}

If you are confident that the package did a good job in estimating the variance
functions, you may now skip directly to the Section \ref{sec:DE}. If you, however, would like to check
whether the fit was good, the rest of this sections explains how to inspect and 
verify the variance function estimates.

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.7\textwidth]{DESeq-figSCV}
\caption{Plot to show the estimated variances (as squared coefficients of variation (SCV), i.e., variance over squared mean), produced with the function \Rfunction{scvPlot}.}
\label{figSCV}
\end{figure}

The function 'scvPlot' shows all the base variance functions in one plot:
<<figSCV,fig=TRUE,width=5,height=5>>=
scvPlot( cds )
@
In the produced plot (Fig.\ \ref{figSCV}), the x axis is the base mean, the y 
axis the squared coefficient of variation (SCV),
i.e., the ratio of the variance at base level to the square of the base mean. 
The solid lines are the SCV for the raw variances, i.e., the noise due to biological 
replication. There is one coloured solid line per condition, and, in case there are
non-replicated conditions, a dashed black line for the maximum of the raw variances, 
which is used for these. 

On top of the variance, there is shot noise, i.e., the Poissonean variance inherent 
to the process of counting reads. The amount of shot noise depends on the size factor, and
hence, for each sample, a dotted line in the colour of its condition is plotted above the
solid line. The dotted line is the base variance, i.e., the full variance, scaled down to
base level by the size factors. The vertical distance between solid and dotted lines is the
shot noise.

The solid black line is a density estimate of the base means: Only were
there is an appreciable number of base mean values, the variance estimates can be
expected to be accurate. 

It is instructive to observe at which count level the biological 
noise starts to dominate the shot noise. At low counts, where shot noise dominates, higher
sequencing depth (larger library size) will improve the signal-to-noise ratio while
for high counts, where the biological noise dominates, only additional biological 
replicates will help. 

One should check whether the base variance functions seem to follow the
empirical variance well. To this end, two diagnostic functions are provided.
The function \Rfunction{varianceFitDiagnostics} returns, for a specified condition,
a data frame with four columns: the mean base level for each gene, the base
variance as estimated from the count values of this gene only, and the fitted
base variance, i.e., the predicted value from the local fit through the
base variance estimates from all genes. As one typically has few replicates,
the single-gene estimate of the base variance can deviate wildly from the
fitted value. To see whether this might be too wild, the cumulative probability
for this ratio of single-gene estimate to fitted value is calculated from the
$\chi^2$ distribution, as explained in the paper. These values are the fourth
column.
<<>>=
diagForT <- varianceFitDiagnostics( cds, "T" )
head( diagForT )
@

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.6\textwidth]{DESeq-figFit}
\caption{Diagnostic plot to check the fit of the variance function.}
\label{figFit}
\end{figure}

We may now plot the per-gene estimates of the base variance against the base
levels and draw a line with the fit from the local regression:
<<figFit,fig=TRUE>>=
smoothScatter( log10(diagForT$baseMean), log10(diagForT$baseVar) )
lines( log10(fittedBaseVar) ~ log10(baseMean), 
   diagForT[ order(diagForT$baseMean), ], col="red" )
@ % $

As one can see (Fig.~\ref{figFit}), the fit (red line) follows the single-gene estimates well, even
though the spread of the latter is considerable, as one should expect, given
that each variance value is estimated from just three values.

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{DESeq-figECDF}
\caption{Another diagnostic plot to check the fit of the variance functions. This one is 
produced with the function \Rfunction{residualsEcdfPlot}.}
\label{figECDF}
\end{figure}

Another way to study the diagnostic data is to check whether the probabilities in the fourth column of the diagnostics
data frame are uniform, as they should be. One may simply look at the histogram of 
\texttt{diagForGB\$pchisq} but a more convenient way is the function 
\Rfunction{residualsEcdfPlot}, which show empirical cumulative density functions 
(ECDF) stratified by base level. 
We look at them for the conditions ``T'' and ``N'':
<<figECDF,fig=TRUE,width=14,height=7>>=
par( mfrow=c(1,2 ) )
residualsEcdfPlot( cds, "T" )
residualsEcdfPlot( cds, "N" )
@
Fig.~\ref{figECDF} shows the output. In both cases, the ECDF curves follow the diagonal well,
i.e., the fit is good. Only for very low counts (below 10), the deviations become stronger, but as at these levels,
shot noise dominates, this is no reason for concern. 

For the condition ``T2'', we cannot estimate a variance function  as we have no replicates. When a variance estimate is needed for ``T2'', the package will use the
maximum of the variances estimated for all the other conditions. To see the assignment of conditions to 
variance functions, use the \Rfunction{rawVarFuncTable} accessor function:
<<>>=
rawVarFuncTable( cds )
@

\section{Calling differential expression} \label{sec:DE}

Having estimated and verified the variance--mean dependence, it is now straight-forward to look for
differentially expressed genes. To contrast two conditions, e.g., to see whether there is differential
expression between conditions ``N'' and ``T'', we simply call the function \Rfunction{nbinomTest}.
It performs the tests as described in the paper and returns a data frame with the $p$ value and other
useful data.
<<>>=
res <- nbinomTest( cds, "N", "T" )
head(res)
@
For each gene, we get its mean expression level (at the base scale) as a joint estimate from both conditions, and
estimated separately for each  condition, the fold change from
the first to the second condition, the logarithm (to basis 2) of the fold change, and the
$p$ value for the statistical significance of this change. The \texttt{padj} column contains the 
$p$ values, adjusted for multiple testing with the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure (see the standard R function
\Rfunction{p.adjust}), which controls false discovery 
rate (FDR). The last two columns show the ratio of the single gene estimates for the base
variance to the fitted value. This may help to notice false hits due to ``variance outliers''.

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.6\textwidth]{DESeq-figDE}
\caption{MvA plot for the contrast ``T'' vs.\ ``N''.}
\label{figDE}
\end{figure}

Let us first plot the $\log_2$ fold changes against the base means, colouring in red those genes
that are significant at 10\% FDR.
<<figDE,fig=TRUE>>=
plot( 
   res$baseMean, 
   res$log2FoldChange, 
   log="x", pch=20, cex=.1, 
   col = ifelse( res$padj < .1, "red", "black" ) )
@
See Fig.~\ref{figDE} for the plot.

Finally, we may filter for the significant genes,
<<>>=
resSig <- res[ res$padj < .1, ]
@
and list, e.g., the most significantly differentially expressed genes:
<<>>=
head( resSig[ order(resSig$pval), ] )
@

We may also want to look at the most strongly down-regulated of the significant
genes,
<<>>=
head( resSig[ order( resSig$foldChange, -resSig$baseMean ), ] )
@
or at the most strongly up-regulated ones:
<<>>=
head( resSig[ order( -resSig$foldChange, -resSig$baseMean ), ] )
@

\section{Working partially without replicates}

If you have replicates for one condition but not for the other, you can still proceed as
before. As already stated above, the testing function will simply take the maximum of all 
estimated variance function for conditions without replicates. If we consider this acceptable,
we can contrast the single ``T2'' sample against the two ``N'' samples.

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.6\textwidth]{DESeq-figDE_T2}
\caption{MvA plot for the contrast ``T2'' vs.\ ``N''.}
\label{figDE_T2}
\end{figure}


<<>>=
resT2vsN <- nbinomTest( cds, "N", "T2" )
@
We produce the same plot as before, again with
<<figDE_T2,fig=TRUE>>=
plot( 
   resT2vsN$baseMean, 
   resT2vsN$log2FoldChange, 
   log="x", pch=20, cex=.1, 
   col = ifelse( resT2vsN$padj < .1, "red", "black" ) )
@
The result (Fig.~\ref{figDE_T2}) shows the same symmetry in up- and down-regulation
as in Fig.~\ref{figDE} but a striking asymmetry in the boundary line for significance. This
has an easy explanation: low counts suffer from proportionally stronger shot noise than high counts, and this
is more pronounced in the ``T2'' data than in the ``N'' data due to the lack of replicates. Hence
a stronger signal is required to call a down-regulation significant than for an up-regulation.


\section{Working without any replicates}

Proper replicates are essential to interpret a biological experiment. After all, if one compares two
conditions and finds a difference, how else would one know that this difference is due to the different conditions
and would not have arisen between replicates, as well, just due to noise? Hence, any attempt to work without any
replicates will lead to conclusions of very limited reliability.

Nevertheless, such experiments are often undertaken, especially in HTS, and the \Rpackage{DESeq} package
can deal with them, even though the soundness of the results may depend very much on the circumstances.

Our primary assumption is still that the mean is a good predictor for the variance. Hence, if a number of genes 
with similar expression level are compared between replicates, we expect that their variation is of
comparable magnitude. Once we accept this assumption, we may argue as follows: Given two samples from 
different conditions and a number of genes with comparable expression levels, of which we expect only a minority
to be influenced by the condition, we may take the variance estimated from comparing their count rates \emph{across}
conditions as ersatz for a proper estimate of the variance across replicates. After all,
we assume most genes to behave the same within replicates as across conditions, and hence, the estimated variance 
should not change too much due to the influence of the hopefully few differentially expressed genes. Furthermore,
the differentially expressed genes will only cause the variance estimate to be too high, so that the test will err to the
side of being too conservative, i.e., we only lose power.

We shall now see how well this works for our example data, even though it has rather many differentially expressed genes.

We reduce our count data set to just two columns, one ``T'' and one ``N'' sample:
<<>>=
cds2 <- cds[ ,c( "T1b", "N1" ) ]
@

Now, without any replicates at all, the \Rfunction{estimateVarianceFunctions} function will refuse to proceed unless we 
instruct it to ignore the condition labels and estimate the variance pooled over all samples:
<<>>=
cds2 <- estimateVarianceFunctions( cds2, pool=TRUE )
@

Now, we can attempt to find differential expression:
<<>>=
res2 <- nbinomTest( cds2, "N", "T" )
@

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.6\textwidth]{DESeq-figDE2}
\caption{MvA plot for the contrast ``T'' vs.\ ``N'', from a test using no replicates.}
\label{figDE2}
\end{figure}

Unsurprisingly, we find much fewer hits, as can be seen from the plot (Fig.\ ref{figDE2})
<<figDE2,fig=TRUE>>=
plot( 
   res2$baseMean,
   res2$log2FoldChange, 
   log="x", pch=20, cex=.1, 
   col = ifelse( res2$padj < .1, "red", "black" ) )
@
and from this table, tallying the number of significant hits in our previous and our new, restricted analysis:
<<>>=
table( res_sig = res$padj < .1, res2_sig = res2$padj < .1 )
@
As can be seen, we have still found about 1/4 of the hits, and only a reassuringly small number of 
new (and potentially false) hits.

One may finally ask whether the reduction of discoveries to a quarter is due to the higher variance
estimate, or due to the lower confidence in the base mean estimates, which is due to the reduced
sample size. To see this, we run the original analysis again, but now using the new, worse variance function. 
As this analysis is outside the standard work-flow, we have to use a lower-level function of the package,
which does not recognise the \Rclass{CountDataSet} S4 object but instead expects all data to be 
specified separately. (This is inconvenient normally but enables us here to substitute another variance function
for the one that the \Rfunction{nbinomTest} function would use.)
<<>>=
colsN <- conditions(cds) == "N"
colsT <- conditions(cds) == "T"
baseMeansNT <- getBaseMeansAndVariances( 
   counts(cds)[ , colsN|colsT ], 
   sizeFactors(cds)[ colsN|colsT ] )$baseMean
pvals2b <- nbinomTestForMatrices(
   counts(cds)[ ,colsN ],
   counts(cds)[ ,colsT ],
   sizeFactors(cds)[ colsN ],
   sizeFactors(cds)[ colsT ],
   rawVarFunc( cds2, "_pooled" )( baseMeansNT ),
   rawVarFunc( cds2, "_pooled" )( baseMeansNT ) )
@

We adjust the $p$ values and then compare the hits with those found originally:
<<>>=   
padj2b <- p.adjust( pvals2b, method="BH" )
table( res_sig = res$padj < .1, res2b_sig = padj2b < .1 )
@ %$
In conclusion, the worse variance estimates costs very roughly half of the hits, and the
reduces sample size then another half, leaving us with a quarter of the original hits.

\section{Sample clustering}

Another feature of the \Rpackage{DESeq} package is the variance stabilising transformation (VST).
This is a monotonous function, which is calculated for each sample from the applicable
variance function, that transforms the count data such that its variance becomes independent
of the mean, i.e., it produces a homoscedastic version of the data.

To demonstrate a potential use for this, we instantiate another CountDataSet and do not remove sample T1a this time:

<<>>=
cds3 <- newCountDataSet( countsTable, conds )
cds3 <- estimateSizeFactors( cds3 )
cds3 <- estimateVarianceFunctions( cds3 )
@

Now, we call the function \Rfunction{getVarianceStabilizedData},
<<>>=
vsd <- getVarianceStabilizedData( cds3 )
@
which returns a matrix of non-integer data:
<<>>=
head( vsd )
@

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.6\textwidth]{DESeq-figHeatmap}
\caption{A heatmap showing the distances between the samples as calculated from the 
variance-stabilising transformation of the count data.}
\label{figHeatmap}
\end{figure}

This data is now approximately homoscedastic and hence suitable as input to various statistical procedures, e.g., a simple distance calculation:
<<>>=
dists <- dist( t( vsd ) )
@

We visualise the distance matrix as a heatmap:
<<figHeatmap,fig=TRUE>>=
heatmap( as.matrix( dists ), symm=TRUE )
@

From the output (Fig.\ \ref{figHeatmap}), we can see, e.g., that the two samples T1a and T1b
that were derived from the same patient are indeed quite similar, and that the sample T3
with the atypical histopathological phenotype is not that different from sample T2.

\appendix

\section{Reference overview}

This appendix gives a terse overview of the class and all the functions defined in the package. The
description assumed that the reader is familiar with the \texttt{eSet} class.

The package defines one S4 class, \Rclass{CountDataSet}, which is derived from \Rclass{eSet}. To instantiate 
an object, use the function \Rfunction{newCountDataSet}. Do not call \Rfunction{new} directly.

The class's \texttt{assayData} is a locked environment containing a single object, namely the matrix
\texttt{counts} with the count data. The \texttt{featureData} is not used internally, but the user may
wish to store annotation there. The \texttt{phenoData} contains two columns, \texttt{\_sizeFactors}
and \texttt{\_conditions} to hold the vector of size factors and the factor of conditions. The user may add
further columns for annotation. 

Furthermore, there is a slot \texttt{rawVarFuncs} of type environment that holds the raw variance functions.
Each of these functions has a name to access it in the environment, which is either the name of a condition, or
\texttt{"\_max"} for conditions without replicates in normal mode, or \texttt{"\_pooled"} for the single
pooled estimate that \Rfunction{estimateVarianceFunction} produces when called with \texttt{pool=TRUE}.
Finally, the slot \texttt{rawVarFuncTable} contains a named character vector that serves as a look-up table.
The names are the conditions and the values are the function names, i.e., the hash keys for the \texttt{rawVarFuncs} environment.

All these properties are checked by the validity method.

The following slot accessors are provided: \Rfunction{counts}, \Rfunction{sizeFactors}, \Rfunction{conditions},
\Rfunction{rawVarFunc}, \Rfunction{rawVarFuncTable}. To avoid accidental invalidation, a setter is provided only for
\Rfunction{sizeFactors}. (The other slots may be change via the ``\texttt{@}'' syntax, but only at the user's risk.)

All functions that perform actual calculations are offered in two variants: a ``core'' one that takes base types as explicit
arguments, and a wrapper that takes a \Rclass{CountDataObject} and finds the data there itself. As these function pairs
have rather different argument lists, they are not made as generic functions, but rather have two different names, as follows:
\medskip

\small{\noindent
\begin{tabular}{lll}
Purpose & Wrapper function & Core function \\
\hline \\
estimate size factors & \texttt{estimateSizeFactors} & \texttt{estimateSizeFactorsForMatrix} \\
estimate variance functions & \Rfunction{estimateVarianceFunctions} & \Rfunction{estimateVarianceFunctionForMatrix} \\
calculate base means and variances & N/A & \Rfunction{getBaseMeansAndVariances} \\
get diagnostics for variance fit & \Rfunction{varianceFitDiagnostics} & \Rfunction{varianceFitDiagnosticsForMatrix} \\
produce ECDF plot for variance residuals & \Rfunction{residualsEcdfPlot} & \Rfunction{residualsEcdfPlotFromDiagnostics} \\
perform test & \Rfunction{nbinomTest} & \Rfunction{nbinomTestForMatrices} 
\end{tabular}
}

\section{Session Info}
<<>>=
sessionInfo()
@

\end{document}
