Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29491871›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in plant science2018

Optimization of an RNA-Seq Differential Gene Expression Analysis Depending on Biological Replicate Number and Library Size.

Sophie Lamarre, Pierre Frasse, Mohamed Zouine, Delphine Labourdette, Elise Sainderichin, Guojian Hu, Véronique Le Berre-Anton, Mondher Bouzayen, Elie Maza

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in plant science, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing 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

50 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. The variegatedComputational and structural biotechnology journal · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

9 authors.

Sophie LamarreLISBP, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, INRA, INSA, Université de Toulouse, Toulouse, France.
Pierre FrasseGBF, Université de Toulouse, INRA, Castanet-Tolosan, France.
Mohamed ZouineGBF, Université de Toulouse, INRA, Castanet-Tolosan, France.
Delphine LabourdetteLISBP, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, INRA, INSA, Université de Toulouse, Toulouse, France.
Elise SainderichinGBF, Université de Toulouse, INRA, Castanet-Tolosan, France.
Guojian HuGBF, Université de Toulouse, INRA, Castanet-Tolosan, France.
Véronique Le Berre-AntonLISBP, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, INRA, INSA, Université de Toulouse, Toulouse, France.
Mondher BouzayenGBF, Université de Toulouse, INRA, Castanet-Tolosan, France.
Elie MazaGBF, Université de Toulouse, INRA, Castanet-Tolosan, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

RNA-Seq is a widely used technology that allows an efficient genome-wide quantification of gene expressions for, for example, differential expression (DE) analysis. After a brief review of the main issues, methods and tools related to the DE analysis of RNA-Seq data, this article focuses on the impact of both the replicate number and library size in such analyses. While the main drawback of previous relevant studies is the lack of generality, we conducted both an analysis of a two-condition experiment (with eight biological replicates per condition) to compare the results with previous benchmark studies, and a meta-analysis of 17 experiments with up to 18 biological conditions, eight biological replicates and 100 million (M) reads per sample. As a global trend, we concluded that the replicate number has a larger impact than the library size on the power of the DE analysis, except for low-expressed genes, for which both parameters seem to have the same impact. Our study also provides new insights for practitioners aiming to enhance their experimental designs. For instance, by analyzing both the sensitivity and specificity of the DE analysis, we showed that the optimal threshold to control the false discovery rate (FDR) is approximately 2

Indexed as

biological replicatesdifferential gene expression analysisfalse discovery rategene ontology enrichment analysislibrary sizepowerRNA-Seqtranscriptomics

Identifiers

PMID29491871
PMCPMC5817962

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.