Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26538400›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2015

Evaluation of methods for differential expression analysis on multi-group RNA-seq count data.

Min Tang, Jianqiang Sun, Kentaro Shimizu, Koji Kadota

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed
–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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

43 citing papers in PubMed.

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

4 authors.

Min TangGraduate School of Agricultural and Life Sciences, The University of Tokyo, 1-1-1 Yayoi, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8657, Japan. tm2015@bi.a.u-tokyo.ac.jp.
Jianqiang SunGraduate School of Agricultural and Life Sciences, The University of Tokyo, 1-1-1 Yayoi, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8657, Japan. wukong@bi.a.u-tokyo.ac.jp.
Kentaro ShimizuGraduate School of Agricultural and Life Sciences, The University of Tokyo, 1-1-1 Yayoi, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8657, Japan. shimizu@bi.a.u-tokyo.ac.jp.
Koji KadotaGraduate School of Agricultural and Life Sciences, The University of Tokyo, 1-1-1 Yayoi, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8657, Japan. kadota@bi.a.u-tokyo.ac.jp.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRNA-seq is a powerful tool for measuring transcriptomes, especially for identifying differentially expressed genes or transcripts (DEGs) between sample groups. A number of methods have been developed for this task, and several evaluation studies have also been reported. However, those evaluations so far have been restricted to two-group comparisons. Accumulations of comparative studies for multi-group data are also desired.

methodsWe compare 12 pipelines available in nine R packages for detecting differential expressions (DE) from multi-group RNA-seq count data, focusing on three-group data with or without replicates. We evaluate those pipelines on the basis of both simulation data and real count data.

resultsAs a result, the pipelines in the TCC package performed comparably to or better than other pipelines under various simulation scenarios. TCC implements a multi-step normalization strategy (called DEGES) that internally uses functions provided by other representative packages (edgeR, DESeq2, and so on). We found considerably different numbers of identified DEGs (18.5 ~ 45.7% of all genes) among the pipelines for the same real dataset but similar distributions of the classified expression patterns. We also found that DE results can roughly be estimated by the hierarchical dendrogram of sample clustering for the raw count data.

conclusionWe confirmed the DEGES-based pipelines implemented in TCC performed well in a three-group comparison as well as a two-group comparison. We recommend using the DEGES-based pipeline that internally uses edgeR (here called the EEE-E pipeline) for count data with replicates (especially for small sample sizes). For data without replicates, the DEGES-based pipeline with DESeq2 (called SSS-S) can be recommended.

Indexed as

AnimalsArea Under CurveComputer SimulationFemaleGene Expression ProfilingGene Expression RegulationHumansMacaca mulattaMalePan troglodytesReproducibility of ResultsSequence Analysis, RNASoftwareTranscriptome

Identifiers

PMID26538400
PMCPMC4634584

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.