ArticleBMC bioinformatics2013
Comparative studies of differential gene calling using RNA-Seq data.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Analyzing the defense response mechanism ofFrontiers in plant science · 2024Article
- Article
- Ectopic expression of CGG-repeats alters ovarian response to gonadotropins and leads to infertility in a murine FMR1 premutation model.Human molecular genetics · 2021Article
- Diurnal biomarkers reveal key photosynthetic genes associated with increased oil palm yield.PloS one · 2019Article
- Arabidopsis ABI5 plays a role in regulating ROS homeostasis by activating CATALASE 1 transcription in seed germination.Plant molecular biology · 2017Article
- Tissue and cell-type co-expression networks of transcription factors and wood component genes in Populus trichocarpa.Planta · 2017Article
- A mutation in the tuft mouse disrupts TET1 activity and alters the expression of genes that are crucial for neural tube closure.Disease models & mechanisms · 2016Article
- HsfA2 Controls the Activity of Developmentally and Stress-Regulated Heat Stress Protection Mechanisms in Tomato Male Reproductive Tissues.Plant physiology · 2016Article
- CANEapp: a user-friendly application for automated next generation transcriptomic data analysis.BMC genomics · 2016Article
- Gene Expression Patterns during Light and Dark Infection of Prochlorococcus by Cyanophage.PloS one · 2016Article
- The impact of RNA-seq aligners on gene expression estimation.ACM-BCB ... ... : the ... ACM Conference on Bioinformatics, Computational Biology and Biomedicine. ACM Conference on Bioinformatics, Computational Biology and Biomedicine · 2015Article
- Differential Gene Expression Reveals Candidate Genes for Drought Stress Response in Abies alba (Pinaceae).PloS one · 2015Article
- Companion cropping with potato onion enhances the disease resistance of tomato against Verticillium dahliae.Frontiers in plant science · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWith its massive amount of data, gene-expression profiling by RNA-Seq has many advantanges compared with microarray experiments. RNA-Seq analysis, however, is fundamentally different from microarray data analysis. Techniques developed for analyzing microarray data thus cannot be directly applicable for the digital gene expression data. Several statistical methods have been developed for identifying differentially expressed genes specifically from RNA-Seq data over the past few years.
resultsIn this study, we examined the performance of differential gene-calling methods using RNA-Seq data in practical situations. We focused on two representative methods: one parametric method, DESeq, and one nonparametric method, NOISeq. We examined their performance using both simulated and real datasets. Our simulation followed the RNA-Seq process and produced more realistic short read data. Both DESeq and NOISeq identified over-expressed genes more correctly than under-expressed genes. While DESeq was more likely to call longer genes as differentially expressed than shorter ones, NOISeq did not have such bias. When the underlying variation increased, both methods showed higher rates of false positives. When replicates were not available in the experiments, both methods showed lower rates of true positives and higher rates of false positives.
conclusionsThe level of variation clearly affected the performance of both methods, showing the importance of understanding the variation in the data as well as having replications in RNA-Seq experiments. We showed that it is possible to obtain improved differential gene-calling results by combining the results obtained by the two methods. We suggested strategies to use these two methods individually or combined according to the characteristics of the data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.