ArticleSynthetic biology (Oxford, England)2022
A toolkit for enhanced reproducibility of RNASeq analysis for synthetic biologists.
Article in Synthetic biology (Oxford, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Automated in vivo enzyme engineering accelerates biocatalyst optimization.Nature communications · 2024Review
- Special issue: reproducibility in synthetic biology.Synthetic biology (Oxford, England) · 2023Article
- Advancing reproducibility can ease the 'hard truths' of synthetic biology.Synthetic biology (Oxford, England) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sequencing technologies, in particular RNASeq, have become critical tools in the design, build, test and learn cycle of synthetic biology. They provide a better understanding of synthetic designs, and they help identify ways to improve and select designs. While these data are beneficial to design, their collection and analysis is a complex, multistep process that has implications on both discovery and reproducibility of experiments. Additionally, tool parameters, experimental metadata, normalization of data and standardization of file formats present challenges that are computationally intensive. This calls for high-throughput pipelines expressly designed to handle the combinatorial and longitudinal nature of synthetic biology. In this paper, we present a pipeline to maximize the analytical reproducibility of RNASeq for synthetic biologists. We also explore the impact of reproducibility on the validation of machine learning models. We present the design of a pipeline that combines traditional RNASeq data processing tools with structured metadata tracking to allow for the exploration of the combinatorial design in a high-throughput and reproducible manner. We then demonstrate utility via two different experiments: a control comparison experiment and a machine learning model experiment. The first experiment compares datasets collected from identical biological controls across multiple days for two different organisms. It shows that a reproducible experimental protocol for one organism does not guarantee reproducibility in another. The second experiment quantifies the differences in experimental runs from multiple perspectives. It shows that the lack of reproducibility from these different perspectives can place an upper bound on the validation of machine learning models trained on RNASeq data. Graphical Abstract.
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.