ArticlePeerJ2019
Detection of condition-specific marker genes from RNA-seq data with MGFR.
Article in PeerJ, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Expression Atlas in 2026: enabling FAIR and open expression data through community collaboration and integration.Nucleic acids research · 2026Article
- Change in the ability of bovine granulosa cells to elongate transzonal projections and their transcriptome changes during follicle development.The Journal of reproduction and development · 2024Article
- Redefining normal breast cell populations using long noncoding RNAs.Nucleic acids research · 2023Article
- Entropy sorting of single-cell RNA sequencing data reveals the inner cell mass in the human pre-implantation embryo.Stem cell reports · 2023Article
- LRcell: detecting the source of differential expression at the sub-cell-type level from bulk RNA-seq data.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2022Article
- Article
- A deconvolution method and its application in analyzing the cellular fractions in acute myeloid leukemia samples.BMC genomics · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The identification of condition-specific genes is key to advancing our understanding of cell fate decisions and disease development. Differential gene expression analysis (DGEA) has been the standard tool for this task. However, the amount of samples that modern transcriptomic technologies allow us to study, makes DGEA a daunting task. On the other hand, experiments with low numbers of replicates lack the statistical power to detect differentially expressed genes. We have previously developed MGFM, a tool for marker gene detection from microarrays, that is particularly useful in the latter case. Here, we have adapted the algorithm behind MGFM to detect markers in RNA-seq data. MGFR groups samples with similar gene expression levels and flags potential markers of a sample type if their highest expression values represent all replicates of this type. We have benchmarked MGFR against other methods and found that its proposed markers accurately characterize the functional identity of different tissues and cell types in standard and single cell RNA-seq datasets. Then, we performed a more detailed analysis for three of these datasets, which profile the transcriptomes of different human tissues, immune and human blastocyst cell types, respectively. MGFR's predicted markers were compared to gold-standard lists for these datasets and outperformed the other marker detectors. Finally, we suggest novel candidate marker genes for the examined tissues and cell types. MGFR is implemented as a freely available Bioconductor package (https://doi.org/doi:10.18129/B9.bioc.MGFR), which facilitates its use and integration with bioinformatics pipelines.
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.