@jdpereira@BethBGenetics Agree that qPCR is both useful and a good tool; disagree that RNAseq analysis is improved by use of a "gold standard" that is frequently more susceptible to bias (in many forms) than RNAseq itself.
Reasonable minds may differ, depending on the exact nature of their question.
@jdpereira@BethBGenetics I have two ways to measure the length of a room: a calibrated laser rangefinder and a warped wooden meter stick with half the markings rubbed off.
I can use both methods to obtain an answer, but exactly how useful is the meter stick in this case?
@Randy_Au The Fine French Wine Fallacy:
Q: If you take a barrel of fine French wine and add a cup of crap to it, what do you have?
A: The same thing you'd have if you took a barrel of crap and added a cup of fine French wine.
Once you add crap, it's all crap.
THERE’S NO REASON TO VALIDATE YOUR RNA-SEQ EXPERIMENT WITH qPCR. RNA-SEQ IS A FAIRLY UNBIASED APPROACH TO ASSESS TRANSCRIPT QUANTITY ACROSS THE WHOLE GENOME AND DOESN’T SUFFER FROM PROBE BIAS THAT CAN BE EXPERIENCED WITH QPCR PRIMERS
@gingerest @ProfLikeSubst I think you misspelled "the U.S. healthcare 'system' is a Gordian Knot that often seems custom-made to drive good people into a rage when they try to understand it, use it, or even think about it for more than a few minutes at a time."
😉🙃