ArticleScientific reports2022
A comparison of strategies for generating artificial replicates in RNA-seq experiments.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sex-specific role of the 5-HTNature communications · 2025Article
- Article
- A reliable and quick method for screening alternative splicing variants for low-abundance genes.PloS one · 2024Article
- Article
- The hitchhikers' guide to RNA sequencing and functional analysis.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Due to the overall high costs, technical replicates are usually omitted in RNA-seq experiments, but several methods exist to generate them artificially. Bootstrapping reads from FASTQ-files has recently been used in the context of other NGS analyses and can be used to generate artificial technical replicates. Bootstrapping samples from the columns of the expression matrix has already been used for DNA microarray data and generates a new artificial replicate of the whole experiment. Mixing data of individual samples has been used for data augmentation in machine learning. The aim of this comparison is to evaluate which of these strategies are best suited to study the reproducibility of differential expression and gene-set enrichment analysis in an RNA-seq experiment. To study the approaches under controlled conditions, we performed a new RNA-seq experiment on gene expression changes upon virus infection compared to untreated control samples. In order to compare the approaches for artificial replicates, each of the samples was sequenced twice, i.e. as true technical replicates, and differential expression analysis and GO term enrichment analysis was conducted separately for the two resulting data sets. Although we observed a high correlation between the results from the two replicates, there are still many genes and GO terms that would be selected from one replicate but not from the other. Cluster analyses showed that artificial replicates generated by bootstrapping reads produce it p values and fold changes that are close to those obtained from the true data sets. Results generated from artificial replicates with the approaches of column bootstrap or mixing observations were less similar to the results from the true replicates. Furthermore, the overlap of results among replicates generated by column bootstrap or mixing observations was much stronger than among the true replicates. Artificial technical replicates generated by bootstrapping sequencing reads from FASTQ-files are better suited to study the reproducibility of results from differential expression and GO term enrichment analysis in RNA-seq experiments than column bootstrap or mixing observations. However, FASTQ-bootstrapping is computationally more expensive than the other two approaches. The FASTQ-bootstrapping may be applicable to other applications of high-throughput sequencing.
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.