Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32284352›Full record

ReviewRNA (New York, N.Y.)2020

Misuse of RPKM or TPM normalization when comparing across samples and sequencing protocols.

Shanrong Zhao, Zhan Ye, Robert Stanton

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in RNA (New York, N.Y.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 246 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
246citing 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

246 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Metabolic engineering enablesSynthetic and systems biotechnology · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

186 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors.

Shanrong ZhaoIntegrative Biology Center of Excellence, Pfizer Worldwide Research and Development, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA.
Zhan YeEarly Clinical Development, Pfizer Worldwide Research and Development, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA.
Robert StantonIntegrative Biology Center of Excellence, Pfizer Worldwide Research and Development, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years, RNA-sequencing (RNA-seq) has emerged as a powerful technology for transcriptome profiling. For a given gene, the number of mapped reads is not only dependent on its expression level and gene length, but also the sequencing depth. To normalize these dependencies, RPKM (reads per kilobase of transcript per million reads mapped) and TPM (transcripts per million) are used to measure gene or transcript expression levels. A common misconception is that RPKM and TPM values are already normalized, and thus should be comparable across samples or RNA-seq projects. However, RPKM and TPM represent the relative abundance of a transcript among a population of sequenced transcripts, and therefore depend on the composition of the RNA population in a sample. Quite often, it is reasonable to assume that total RNA concentration and distributions are very close across compared samples. Nevertheless, the sequenced RNA repertoires may differ significantly under different experimental conditions and/or across sequencing protocols; thus, the proportion of gene expression is not directly comparable in such cases. In this review, we illustrate typical scenarios in which RPKM and TPM are misused, unintentionally, and hope to raise scientists' awareness of this issue when comparing them across samples or different sequencing protocols.

Indexed as

Gene ExpressionGene Expression ProfilingHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansRNASequence Analysis, RNARNAFPKMnormalizationRNA-seqRPKMTPM

Identifiers

PMID32284352
PMCPMC7373998

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.