ArticleGenome biology2018
Differential gene expression analysis tools exhibit substandard performance for long non-coding RNA-sequencing data.
Article in Genome biology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 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
36 citing papers in PubMed, 66 citations in OpenAlex.
- Characterization of aFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- The long non-coding RNA landscape of endurance exercise training.Molecular metabolism · 2026Article
- Transcriptome graph transformer: a graph transformer-based unsupervised model for transcriptome data analysis.BMC bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Research Progress on Sex Pheromone Receptors in Insects.Insects · 2026Review
- An Exploratory Biomarker Study of First-Trimester Circulating miRNAs Associated with Later Gestational Diabetes Mellitus.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Revisiting differential expression analysis: An updated six-dimensional comparative study.PloS one · 2026Article
- The Long Non-coding RNA Landscape of Endurance Exercise Training.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- BEERS2: RNA-Seq simulation through high fidelity in silico modeling.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2024Article
- Alternative Transcripts Diversify Genome Function for Phenome Relevance to Health and Diseases.Genes · 2023Review
- ROGUE: an R Shiny app for RNA sequencing analysis and biomarker discovery.BMC bioinformatics · 2023Article
- Review
- Approaches for sRNA Analysis of Human RNA-Seq Data: Comparison, Benchmarking.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Systematic benchmarking of statistical methods to assess differential expression of circular RNAs.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2023Article
- Identification of lncRNAs involved in response to ionizing radiation in fibroblasts of long-term survivors of childhood cancer and cancer-free controls.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Interactive Analysis, Exploration, and Visualization of RNA-Seq Data with SeqCVIBE.Methods and protocols · 2022Article
- Patient-Specific TBX5-G125R Variant Induces Profound Transcriptional Deregulation and Atrial Dysfunction.Circulation · 2022Article
- Comment on "Circ_0000317/microRNA-520g/HOXD10 axis affects the biological characteristics of colorectal cancer".The Kaohsiung journal of medical sciences · 2022Article
- Microarray Analysis of the Chemoprophylaxis Effect of Zinc Gluconate: Inspiring but Caution Required.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2021Article
- Comment on "Altered Expression of Long Non-coding RNAs in Peripheral Blood Mononuclear Cells of Patients with Alzheimer's Disease".Molecular neurobiology · 2021Article
- 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 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLong non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) are typically expressed at low levels and are inherently highly variable. This is a fundamental challenge for differential expression (DE) analysis. In this study, the performance of 25 pipelines for testing DE in RNA-seq data is comprehensively evaluated, with a particular focus on lncRNAs and low-abundance mRNAs. Fifteen performance metrics are used to evaluate DE tools and normalization methods using simulations and analyses of six diverse RNA-seq datasets.
resultsGene expression data are simulated using non-parametric procedures in such a way that realistic levels of expression and variability are preserved in the simulated data. Throughout the assessment, results for mRNA and lncRNA were tracked separately. All the pipelines exhibit inferior performance for lncRNAs compared to mRNAs across all simulated scenarios and benchmark RNA-seq datasets. The substandard performance of DE tools for lncRNAs applies also to low-abundance mRNAs. No single tool uniformly outperformed the others. Variability, number of samples, and fraction of DE genes markedly influenced DE tool performance.
conclusionsOverall, linear modeling with empirical Bayes moderation (limma) and a non-parametric approach (SAMSeq) showed good control of the false discovery rate and reasonable sensitivity. Of note, for achieving a sensitivity of at least 50%, more than 80 samples are required when studying expression levels in realistic settings such as in clinical cancer research. About half of the methods showed a substantial excess of false discoveries, making these methods unreliable for DE analysis and jeopardizing reproducible science. The detailed results of our study can be consulted through a user-friendly web application, giving guidance on selection of the optimal DE tool ( http://statapps.ugent.be/tools/AppDGE/ ).
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.