[aroma.affymetrix] Re: Mat implementation - comparing MAT (pure) vs MAT aroma.affymetrix

2009-09-01 Thread Mark Robinson
Hi Lavinia. I'm hoping that most of this is explained in the MAT Smoothing section at: http://groups.google.com/group/aroma-affymetrix/web/promoter-tiling-array In your case, the IPs would be Treatment (you would make + numbers in the design matrix) and Inputs would be Control (- numbers in

[aroma.affymetrix] Re: Mat implementation - comparing MAT (pure) vs MAT aroma.affymetrix

2009-08-31 Thread Mark Robinson
Hi Lavinia. Yes. Bandwidth(MAT)=probeWindow(aroma.affymetrix MAT) Also, MinProbe(MAT)=nProbes(aroma.affymetrix MAT) Cheers, Mark On 1-Sep-09, at 11:31 AM, Lavinia Gordon wrote: Hi, I have some older MAT pure results that I'd like to compare to newer MAT aroma.affymetrix results.

[aroma.affymetrix] Re: Mat implementation - comparing MAT (pure) vs MAT aroma.affymetrix

2009-08-31 Thread Lavinia
Thanks Mark, very helpful. Sorry, one other question. With MAT (pure), you group your controls + inputs, e.g. Treatment (1) or Control (0) groups = 111000 for 3ChIP and 3Input How is this best done with MAT aroma.affymetrix (in the contrast matrix)?, it isn't immediately clear to me from the