ArticleNAR genomics and bioinformatics2020
Factorial study of the RNA-seq computational workflow identifies biases as technical gene signatures.
Article in NAR genomics and bioinformatics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Computational Comparison of Differential Splicing Tools for Targeted RNA Long-Amplicon Sequencing (rLAS).International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- RNA-seq data science: From raw data to effective interpretation.Frontiers in genetics · 2023Review
- Reproducible, scalable, and shareable analysis pipelines with bioinformatics workflow managers.Nature methods · 2021Review
- OpenProt 2021: deeper functional annotation of the coding potential of eukaryotic genomes.Nucleic acids research · 2021Article
- RNAflow: An Effective and Simple RNA-Seq Differential Gene Expression Pipeline Using Nextflow.Genes · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
RNA-seq is a modular experimental and computational approach aiming in identifying and quantifying RNA molecules. The modularity of the RNA-seq technology enables adaptation of the protocol to develop new ways to explore RNA biology, but this modularity also brings forth the importance of methodological thoroughness. Liberty of approach comes with the responsibility of choices, and such choices must be informed. Here, we present an approach that identifies gene group-specific quantification biases in current RNA-seq software and references by processing datasets using diverse RNA-seq computational pipelines, and by decomposing these expression datasets with an independent component analysis matrix factorization method. By exploring the RNA-seq pipeline using this systemic approach, we identify genome annotations as a design choice that affects to the same extent quantification results as does the choice of aligners and quantifiers. We also show that the different choices in RNA-seq methodology are not independent, identifying interactions between genome annotations and quantification software. Genes were mainly affected by differences in their sequence, by overlapping genes and genes with similar sequence. Our approach offers an explanation for the observed biases by identifying the common features used differently by the software and references, therefore providing leads for the betterment of RNA-seq methodology.
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.