Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30041657›Full record

ArticleGenome biology2018

Differential gene expression analysis tools exhibit substandard performance for long non-coding RNA-sequencing data.

Alemu Takele Assefa, Katrijn De Paepe, Celine Everaert, Pieter Mestdagh, Olivier Thas, Jo Vandesompele

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 66 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Characterization of aFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. The Long Non-coding RNA Landscape of Endurance Exercise Training.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Alemu Takele AssefaDepartment of Data Analysis and Mathematical Modeling, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium. AlemuTakele.Assefa@UGent.be.ORCID 0000-0002-7773-0621
Katrijn De PaepeGlobal Advanced Analytics Group, Bain & Company Belgium, Inc., Brussels, Belgium.
Celine EveraertDepartment of Pediatrics and Medical Genetics, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Pieter MestdaghDepartment of Pediatrics and Medical Genetics, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Olivier ThasDepartment of Data Analysis and Mathematical Modeling, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Jo VandesompeleDepartment of Pediatrics and Medical Genetics, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Ghent University Hospital · BEGhent University · BEUniversity of Wollongong · AU

Funding

UGent Special Research Fund Concerted Research Actions BOF16-GOA-023
6 · The paper itself

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

AnimalsBayes TheoremBrain NeoplasmsColorectal NeoplasmsDatabases, GeneticDatasets as TopicGene Expression ProfilingGene Expression RegulationHippocampusHumansHypothalamusMiceMice, Inbred C57BLMice, Inbred DBANeuralgiaNeuroblastomaRNA, Long NoncodingDifferential gene expressionlncRNAmRNARNA-seq

Identifiers

PMID30041657
PMCPMC6058388
OpenAlexW2949084500

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.