Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27022035›Full record

ArticleRNA (New York, N.Y.)2016

How many biological replicates are needed in an RNA-seq experiment and which differential expression tool should you use?

Nicholas J Schurch, Pietá Schofield, Marek Gierliński, Christian Cole, Alexander Sherstnev, Vijender Singh, Nicola Wrobel, Karim Gharbi, Gordon G Simpson, Tom Owen-Hughes and 2 more

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in RNA (New York, N.Y.), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 500 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
500citing 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

500 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Honokiol-mediated reversal of cisplatin-induced transcriptomic changes in outer hair cells.Biomedicine & pharmacotherapy = Biomedecine & pharmacotherapie · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Nicholas J SchurchDivision of Computational Biology, College of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Dundee DD1 5EH, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9068-9654
Pietá SchofieldDivision of Computational Biology, College of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Dundee DD1 5EH, United Kingdom Division of Gene Regulation and Expression, College of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Dundee DD1 5EH, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6398-2537
Marek GierlińskiDivision of Computational Biology, College of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Dundee DD1 5EH, United Kingdom Division of Gene Regulation and Expression, College of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Dundee DD1 5EH, United Kingdom.
Christian ColeDivision of Computational Biology, College of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Dundee DD1 5EH, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2560-2484
Alexander SherstnevDivision of Computational Biology, College of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Dundee DD1 5EH, United Kingdom.
Vijender SinghDivision of Gene Regulation and Expression, College of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Dundee DD1 5EH, United Kingdom.
Nicola WrobelEdinburgh Genomics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3JT, United Kingdom.
Karim GharbiEdinburgh Genomics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3JT, United Kingdom.
Gordon G SimpsonDivision of Plant Sciences, College of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Dundee DD1 5EH, United Kingdom.
Tom Owen-HughesDivision of Gene Regulation and Expression, College of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Dundee DD1 5EH, United Kingdom.
Mark BlaxterEdinburgh Genomics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3JT, United Kingdom.
Geoffrey J BartonDivision of Computational Biology, College of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Dundee DD1 5EH, United Kingdom Division of Gene Regulation and Expression, College of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Dundee DD1 5EH, United Kingdom Division of Biological Chemistry and Drug Discovery, College of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Dundee DD1 5EH, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9014-5355

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/H002286/1Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/M004155/1Medical Research Council MR/K001744/1Wellcome Trust 095062Wellcome Trust 098439/Z/12Wellcome Trust 92530/Z/10/ZWellcome Trust WT083481Wellcome Trust WT092340Wellcome Trust WT097945
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

RNA-seq is now the technology of choice for genome-wide differential gene expression experiments, but it is not clear how many biological replicates are needed to ensure valid biological interpretation of the results or which statistical tools are best for analyzing the data. An RNA-seq experiment with 48 biological replicates in each of two conditions was performed to answer these questions and provide guidelines for experimental design. With three biological replicates, nine of the 11 tools evaluated found only 20%-40% of the significantly differentially expressed (SDE) genes identified with the full set of 42 clean replicates. This rises to >85% for the subset of SDE genes changing in expression by more than fourfold. To achieve >85% for all SDE genes regardless of fold change requires more than 20 biological replicates. The same nine tools successfully control their false discovery rate at ≲5% for all numbers of replicates, while the remaining two tools fail to control their FDR adequately, particularly for low numbers of replicates. For future RNA-seq experiments, these results suggest that at least six biological replicates should be used, rising to at least 12 when it is important to identify SDE genes for all fold changes. If fewer than 12 replicates are used, a superior combination of true positive and false positive performances makes edgeR and DESeq2 the leading tools. For higher replicate numbers, minimizing false positives is more important and DESeq marginally outperforms the other tools.

Indexed as

Gene Expression ProfilingReproducibility of ResultsRNA, FungalSaccharomyces cerevisiaeSequence Analysis, RNARNA, Fungalbenchmarkingdifferential expressionexperimental designreplicationRNA-seqstatistical poweryeast

Identifiers

PMID27022035
PMCPMC4878611

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.