ArticleScientific reports2016
Normalization of human RNA-seq experiments using chimpanzee RNA as a spike-in standard.
Article in Scientific reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Normalization of human RNA-seq experiments employing chimpanzee RNA as a spike-in standard is reported. Human and chimpanzee RNAs exhibit single nucleotide variations (SNVs) in average 210-bp intervals. Spike-in chimpanzee RNA would behave the same as the human counterparts during the whole NGS procedures owing to the high sequence similarity. After discrimination of species origins of the NGS reads based on SNVs, the chimpanzee reads were used to read-by-read normalize biases and variations of human reads. By this approach, as many as 10,119 transcripts were simultaneously normalized for the entire NGS procedures leading to accurate and reproducible quantification of differential gene expression. In addition, incomparable data sets from different in-process degradations or from different library preparation methods were made well comparable by the normalization. Based on these results, we expect that the normalization approaches using near neighbor genomes as internal standards could be employed as a standard protocol, which will improve both accuracy and comparability of NGS results across different sample batches, laboratories and NGS platforms.
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.