Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25246651›Full record

ArticleRNA (New York, N.Y.)2014

Power analysis and sample size estimation for RNA-Seq differential expression.

Travers Ching, Sijia Huang, Lana X Garmire

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in RNA (New York, N.Y.), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04088630 (Fingolimod as a Treatment of Cerebral Edema After Intracerebral Hemorrhage), which is not on this map. Cited by 159 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
159citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT04088630 early_phase1completednot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

Fingolimod as a Treatment of Cerebral Edema After Intracerebral Hemorrhage

TypeinterventionalSponsorWake Forest University Health SciencesRan2020 to 2024Enrolled28ConditionsIntracerebral Hemorrhage, Cerebral Edema, Stroke Hemorrhagic, Intracerebral Hemorrhage, HypertensiveArmsFingolimod, Placebo, Open-label Fingolimod
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

159 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

99 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Travers ChingUniversity of Hawaii Cancer Center, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813, USA Graduate Program of Molecular Biosciences and Bioengineering, University of Hawaii-Manoa, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822, USA.
Sijia HuangUniversity of Hawaii Cancer Center, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813, USA Graduate Program of Molecular Biosciences and Bioengineering, University of Hawaii-Manoa, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822, USA.
Lana X GarmireUniversity of Hawaii Cancer Center, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813, USA Graduate Program of Molecular Biosciences and Bioengineering, University of Hawaii-Manoa, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822, USA lgarmire@cc.hawaii.edu.

Funding

Transgenic Mouse, ICSI and IVF CoreP20GM103457 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII AT MANOA · PI WARD, WILLIAM S · 2012 to 2018
$12.9M
NIGMS NIH HHS GM103457NIGMS NIH HHS P20 GM103457
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It is crucial for researchers to optimize RNA-seq experimental designs for differential expression detection. Currently, the field lacks general methods to estimate power and sample size for RNA-Seq in complex experimental designs, under the assumption of the negative binomial distribution. We simulate RNA-Seq count data based on parameters estimated from six widely different public data sets (including cell line comparison, tissue comparison, and cancer data sets) and calculate the statistical power in paired and unpaired sample experiments. We comprehensively compare five differential expression analysis packages (DESeq, edgeR, DESeq2, sSeq, and EBSeq) and evaluate their performance by power, receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves, and other metrics including areas under the curve (AUC), Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC), and F-measures. DESeq2 and edgeR tend to give the best performance in general. Increasing sample size or sequencing depth increases power; however, increasing sample size is more potent than sequencing depth to increase power, especially when the sequencing depth reaches 20 million reads. Long intergenic noncoding RNAs (lincRNA) yields lower power relative to the protein coding mRNAs, given their lower expression level in the same RNA-Seq experiment. On the other hand, paired-sample RNA-Seq significantly enhances the statistical power, confirming the importance of considering the multifactor experimental design. Finally, a local optimal power is achievable for a given budget constraint, and the dominant contributing factor is sample size rather than the sequencing depth. In conclusion, we provide a power analysis tool (http://www2.hawaii.edu/~lgarmire/RNASeqPowerCalculator.htm) that captures the dispersion in the data and can serve as a practical reference under the budget constraint of RNA-Seq experiments.

Indexed as

AnimalsComputer SimulationDatabases, GeneticGene Expression ProfilingHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansMiceRegression AnalysisReproducibility of ResultsResearch DesignRNA, MessengerSample SizeSequence Analysis, RNASoftwareRNA, Messengerbioinformaticspower analysisRNA-Seqsample sizesimulation

Identifiers

PMID25246651
PMCPMC4201821

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.