Unifrac Significant Group over-inflating n's

[ebolyen (Evan Bolyen)]

Hey @saatkinson,

@saatkinson

I saw a previous post (that is now closed) and they were asked for the mapping file and the distance matrix so I’m including both here.

Thanks! I was able to re-run your command to look at the results.

@saatkinson

When I run the beta-group-significance script it is over-inflating the number of n’s that I have in a sample group. I know these numbers can’t be right because my whole dataset only has 98 samples (I’m looking at a subset that only encompasses 50 samples, the day 14 samples).

For the figures, the n doesn't represent the number of samples, but rather the number of pairwise comparisons that make up the distribution for the metric that the box-plot represents. For example, your 2920X_Control vs 2920X_Control has a sample-size of 7, and so the number of possible pairwise comparisons would be \frac{7 * (7-1)}{2} = 21 which matches what we see in the second figure. To state it another way, since metrics are pairwise comparisons, a distribution/boxplot of metric distances must be a distribution/boxplot of pairwise comparisons.

Also, at the bottom where the pairwise permanova results are, the sample size is the number of samples compared (so 7 + 7 for the same 2920X_Control vs 2920X_Control).

Let me know if that makes sense!