ArticleGigaScience2021
The case for using mapped exonic non-duplicate reads when reporting RNA-sequencing depth: examples from pediatric cancer datasets.
Article in GigaScience, 2021. 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.
- Increasing usable reads in RNA-seq protocols.iScience · 2026Article
- A novel splice site variant in DEGS1 leads to aberrant splicing and loss of DEGS1 enzyme activity, a VUS resolved.Human genetics · 2026Article
- Consistently processed RNA sequencing data from 50 sources enriched for pediatric data.Scientific data · 2025Article
- Comparative analysis of RNA expression identifies effective targeted drug in myoepithelial carcinoma.NPJ precision oncology · 2025Article
- Comparative analysis of RNA expression in a single institution cohort of pediatric cancer patients.NPJ precision oncology · 2025Article
- Global regulatory factor VeA upregulates the production of antitumor substances in endophytic Fusarium solani.Antonie van Leeuwenhoek · 2022Article
- The case for using mapped exonic non-duplicate reads when reporting RNA-sequencing depth: examples from pediatric cancer datasets.GigaScience · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe reproducibility of gene expression measured by RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq) is dependent on the sequencing depth. While unmapped or non-exonic reads do not contribute to gene expression quantification, duplicate reads contribute to the quantification but are not informative for reproducibility. We show that mapped, exonic, non-duplicate (MEND) reads are a useful measure of reproducibility of RNA-Seq datasets used for gene expression analysis.
findingsIn bulk RNA-Seq datasets from 2,179 tumors in 48 cohorts, the fraction of reads that contribute to the reproducibility of gene expression analysis varies greatly. Unmapped reads constitute 1-77% of all reads (median [IQR], 3% [3-6%]); duplicate reads constitute 3-100% of mapped reads (median [IQR], 27% [13-43%]); and non-exonic reads constitute 4-97% of mapped, non-duplicate reads (median [IQR], 25% [16-37%]). MEND reads constitute 0-79% of total reads (median [IQR], 50% [30-61%]).
conclusionsBecause not all reads in an RNA-Seq dataset are informative for reproducibility of gene expression measurements and the fraction of reads that are informative varies, we propose reporting a dataset's sequencing depth in MEND reads, which definitively inform the reproducibility of gene expression, rather than total, mapped, or exonic reads. We provide a Docker image containing (i) the existing required tools (RSeQC, sambamba, and samblaster) and (ii) a custom script to calculate MEND reads from RNA-Seq data files. We recommend that all RNA-Seq gene expression experiments, sensitivity studies, and depth recommendations use MEND units for sequencing depth.
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.