ArticlePloS one2017
A comparison of per sample global scaling and per gene normalization methods for differential expression analysis of RNA-seq data.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 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
37 citing papers in PubMed.
- Human immunodeficiency virus-associated gut microbiome impacts systemic immunodeficiency and susceptibility to opportunistic gut infection.Nature microbiology · 2026Article
- Transcriptomics, single-cell sequencing and spatial sequencing-based studies of cerebral ischemia.European journal of medical research · 2025Review
- Optimal chemokine receptors for enhancing immune cell trafficking in adoptive cell therapy.Immunologic research · 2025Article
- Article
- ToxDAR: A Workflow Software for Analyzing Toxicologically Relevant Proteomic and Transcriptomic Data, from Data Preparation to Toxicological Mechanism Elucidation.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Normalization of RNA-Seq data using adaptive trimmed mean with multi-reference.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2024Article
- BEERS2: RNA-Seq simulation through high fidelity in silico modeling.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2024Article
- Standardizing digital biobanks: integrating imaging, genomic, and clinical data for precision medicine.Journal of translational medicine · 2024Review
- Two-Omics Probe on the Potential of Pseudomonas sp. GDMCC 1.1703 Under Phenol Stress.Current microbiology · 2023Article
- Inference of differentially expressed genes using generalized linear mixed models in a pairwise fashion.PeerJ · 2023Article
- Colony‑stimulating factor CSF2 mediates the phenotypic plasticity of small‑cell lung cancer by regulating the p‑STAT3/MYC pathway.Oncology reports · 2022Article
- A comparison of transcriptome analysis methods with reference genome.BMC genomics · 2022Article
- Article
- Incorporating Omics Data in Genomic Prediction.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022Article
- Neurogenomic divergence during speciation by reinforcement of mating behaviors in chorus frogs (Pseudacris).BMC genomics · 2021Article
- Article
- Systematic comparison and assessment of RNA-seq procedures for gene expression quantitative analysis.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Genomic alterations and abnormal expression of APE2 in multiple cancers.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Choice of library size normalization and statistical methods for differential gene expression analysis in balanced two-group comparisons for RNA-seq studies.BMC genomics · 2020Article
- Comparison of Normalization Methods for Analysis of TempO-Seq Targeted RNA Sequencing Data.Frontiers in genetics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Normalization is an essential step with considerable impact on high-throughput RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) data analysis. Although there are numerous methods for read count normalization, it remains a challenge to choose an optimal method due to multiple factors contributing to read count variability that affects the overall sensitivity and specificity. In order to properly determine the most appropriate normalization methods, it is critical to compare the performance and shortcomings of a representative set of normalization routines based on different dataset characteristics. Therefore, we set out to evaluate the performance of the commonly used methods (DESeq, TMM-edgeR, FPKM-CuffDiff, TC, Med UQ and FQ) and two new methods we propose: Med-pgQ2 and UQ-pgQ2 (per-gene normalization after per-sample median or upper-quartile global scaling). Our per-gene normalization approach allows for comparisons between conditions based on similar count levels. Using the benchmark Microarray Quality Control Project (MAQC) and simulated datasets, we performed differential gene expression analysis to evaluate these methods. When evaluating MAQC2 with two replicates, we observed that Med-pgQ2 and UQ-pgQ2 achieved a slightly higher area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AUC), a specificity rate > 85%, the detection power > 92% and an actual false discovery rate (FDR) under 0.06 given the nominal FDR (≤0.05). Although the top commonly used methods (DESeq and TMM-edgeR) yield a higher power (>93%) for MAQC2 data, they trade off with a reduced specificity (<70%) and a slightly higher actual FDR than our proposed methods. In addition, the results from an analysis based on the qualitative characteristics of sample distribution for MAQC2 and human breast cancer datasets show that only our gene-wise normalization methods corrected data skewed towards lower read counts. However, when we evaluated MAQC3 with less variation in five replicates, all methods performed similarly. Thus, our proposed Med-pgQ2 and UQ-pgQ2 methods perform slightly better for differential gene analysis of RNA-seq data skewed towards lowly expressed read counts with high variation by improving specificity while maintaining a good detection power with a control of the nominal FDR level.
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.