Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28459823›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

A comparison of per sample global scaling and per gene normalization methods for differential expression analysis of RNA-seq data.

Xiaohong Li, Guy N Brock, Eric C Rouchka, Nigel G F Cooper, Dongfeng Wu, Timothy E O'Toole, Ryan S Gill, Abdallah M Eteleeb, Liz O'Brien, Shesh N Rai

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing 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

37 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Incorporating Omics Data in Genomic Prediction.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022
    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

10 authors.

Xiaohong LiDepartment of Bioinformatics and Biostatistics, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, United States of America.
Guy N BrockDepartment of Bioinformatics and Biostatistics, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, United States of America.
Eric C RouchkaDepartment of Computer Engineering Computer Science, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, United States of America.
Nigel G F CooperDepartment of Anatomical Sciences and Neurobiology, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, United States of America.
Dongfeng WuDepartment of Bioinformatics and Biostatistics, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, United States of America.
Timothy E O'TooleDepartment of Cardiology, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, United States of America.
Ryan S GillDepartment of Mathematics, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, United States of America.
Abdallah M EteleebDepartment of Internal Medicine, Oncology Division, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, United States of America.
Liz O'BrienDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, United States of America.
Shesh N RaiDepartment of Bioinformatics and Biostatistics, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, United States of America.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8377-353X

Funding

WKU Lead Faculty AwardP20GM103436 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE · PI ERIC C ROUCHKA · 2012 to 2026
$60.1M
NIGMS NIH HHS P20 GM103436
6 · The paper itself

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

Area Under CurveBreast NeoplasmsComputer SimulationDatasets as TopicGene Expression ProfilingHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansMicroarray AnalysisModels, StatisticalROC CurveSequence Analysis, RNASoftware

Identifiers

PMID28459823
PMCPMC5411036

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.