I have a question regarding my results. I ran the beta diversity group significance command to compare groups with a different metadata category. I added one column to the metadata file (not the one presented here) and rerun the analysis from start. However, now after running the commands again I got different p-values. Any idea what would be the issue? The old results are analyzed with Qiime2 version 2019-4.
new results.qzv (386.8 KB)
old result.qzv (387.1 KB)
So I understand your pipeline, what step did you re-run from when you changed your metadata? (The feature table? Diversity? Testing?)
If you re-did from diversity-core metrics, then you re-rarified the table (which is a stochastic process) and then re-ran a permutative test (which is also a random process). So, you have two random processes that resulted in a slight difference in your results, but on the whole, give very similar numbers (167/1000 permutations were more extreme before and 188/1000 permutations were more extreme in the new results).
However, you don’t need to re-run your data when you edit your metadata. (God knows, if you did a lot of us would be in trouble!) There was a long discussion on the topic a while ago; it might be worth checking out to get a better basis for what’s going on under the hood and to help figure out which steps have to be re-done where.
Mistake in metadata file and re-running core metrics analysis.
Thank you for a fast reply and assuring me this is okay! I re-did the core-diversity metrics. Thank you for your opinion and the link you provided, it made me understand the process better. I’m sure it will be useful in the future.
This topic was automatically closed 31 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.