ArticlePloS one2016
A Mechanistic Beta-Binomial Probability Model for mRNA Sequencing Data.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- RNA sequencing: the teenage years.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2019Review
- Single-cell mutation identification via phylogenetic inference.Nature communications · 2018Article
- Broad distribution spectrum from Gaussian to power law appears in stochastic variations in RNA-seq data.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- A Comparison of mRNA Sequencing with Random Primed and 3'-Directed Libraries.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- Metaproteogenomics Reveals Taxonomic and Functional Changes between Cecal and Fecal Microbiota in Mouse.Frontiers in microbiology · 2017Article
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
Abstract
A main application for mRNA sequencing (mRNAseq) is determining lists of differentially-expressed genes (DEGs) between two or more conditions. Several software packages exist to produce DEGs from mRNAseq data, but they typically yield different DEGs, sometimes markedly so. The underlying probability model used to describe mRNAseq data is central to deriving DEGs, and not surprisingly most softwares use different models and assumptions to analyze mRNAseq data. Here, we propose a mechanistic justification to model mRNAseq as a binomial process, with data from technical replicates given by a binomial distribution, and data from biological replicates well-described by a beta-binomial distribution. We demonstrate good agreement of this model with two large datasets. We show that an emergent feature of the beta-binomial distribution, given parameter regimes typical for mRNAseq experiments, is the well-known quadratic polynomial scaling of variance with the mean. The so-called dispersion parameter controls this scaling, and our analysis suggests that the dispersion parameter is a continually decreasing function of the mean, as opposed to current approaches that impose an asymptotic value to the dispersion parameter at moderate mean read counts. We show how this leads to current approaches overestimating variance for moderately to highly expressed genes, which inflates false negative rates. Describing mRNAseq data with a beta-binomial distribution thus may be preferred since its parameters are relatable to the mechanistic underpinnings of the technique and may improve the consistency of DEG analysis across softwares, particularly for moderately to highly expressed genes.
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.