Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36112652›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

An evaluation of RNA-seq differential analysis methods.

Dongmei Li, Martin S Zand, Timothy D Dye, Maciej L Goniewicz, Irfan Rahman, Zidian Xie

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing papers in PubMed
7.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

57 citing papers in PubMed, 79 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Metabolic Imaging and Molecular Signatures Reveal Metabolic Phenotypes in Recurrent Glioblastoma.Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Dongmei LiClinical and Translational Science Institute, School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-9140-2483
Martin S ZandClinical and Translational Science Institute, School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, United States of America.
Timothy D DyeDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, United States of America.
Maciej L GoniewiczDepartment of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY, United States of America.
Irfan RahmanDepartment of Environmental Medicine, School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, United States of America.
Zidian XieClinical and Translational Science Institute, School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, United States of America.
University of Rochester · USRoswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center · US

Funding

The University of Rochester's Clinical and Translational Science InstituteUL1TR002001 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER · PI WILSON, KAREN M., ZAND, MARTIN S · 2016 to 2024
$34.6M
WNY Center for Research on Flavored Tobacco Products (CRoFT)U54CA228110 · NCI · ROSWELL PARK CANCER INSTITUTE CORP · PI LI, DONGMEI · 2018 to 2022
$19.8M
CTSA Coordinating Center for Leading Innovation and Collaboration (CLIC)U24TR002260 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER · PI OSSIP, DEBORAH J, ZAND, MARTIN S · 2017 to 2021
$19.0M
The University of Rochester's Clinical and Translational Science InstituteUL1TR000042 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER · PI BENNETT, NANCY M, KIEBURTZ, KARL D. · 2012 to 2015
$14.4M
TriState SenNET (Lung and Heart) Tissue Map and Atlas consortiumU54AG075931 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI TOREN FINKEL, Melanie Koenigshoff · 2021 to 2026
$14.0M
Modeling B Cell Vaccine Responses in Transplant RecipientsR01AI069351 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER · PI HYRIEN, OLLIVIER, ZAND, MARTIN S · 2007 to 2016
$3.7M
Modeling Immune Desensitization in Renal TransplantationR01AI098112 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER · PI ZAND, MARTIN S · 2012 to 2016
$1.9M
Molecular clock dysfunction in lung cellular senescence by environmental tobacco smokeR01ES029177 · NIEHS · UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER · PI RAHMAN, IRFAN · 2019 to 2023
$1.7M
Exosomal epigenetic biomarkers associated with flavored electronic cigarette usein adultsR21ES032159 · NIEHS · UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER · PI LI, DONGMEI, RAHMAN, IRFAN · 2021 to 2022
$424k
NCATS NIH HHS U24 TR002260NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000042NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002001NCI NIH HHS U54 CA228110NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI069351NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI098112NIA NIH HHS U54 AG075931NIEHS NIH HHS R01 ES029177NIEHS NIH HHS R21 ES032159
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

RNA-seq is a high-throughput sequencing technology widely used for gene transcript discovery and quantification under different biological or biomedical conditions. A fundamental research question in most RNA-seq experiments is the identification of differentially expressed genes among experimental conditions or sample groups. Numerous statistical methods for RNA-seq differential analysis have been proposed since the emergence of the RNA-seq assay. To evaluate popular differential analysis methods used in the open source R and Bioconductor packages, we conducted multiple simulation studies to compare the performance of eight RNA-seq differential analysis methods used in RNA-seq data analysis (edgeR, DESeq, DESeq2, baySeq, EBSeq, NOISeq, SAMSeq, Voom). The comparisons were across different scenarios with either equal or unequal library sizes, different distribution assumptions and sample sizes. We measured performance using false discovery rate (FDR) control, power, and stability. No significant differences were observed for FDR control, power, or stability across methods, whether with equal or unequal library sizes. For RNA-seq count data with negative binomial distribution, when sample size is 3 in each group, EBSeq performed better than the other methods as indicated by FDR control, power, and stability. When sample sizes increase to 6 or 12 in each group, DESeq2 performed slightly better than other methods. All methods have improved performance when sample size increases to 12 in each group except DESeq. For RNA-seq count data with log-normal distribution, both DESeq and DESeq2 methods performed better than other methods in terms of FDR control, power, and stability across all sample sizes. Real RNA-seq experimental data were also used to compare the total number of discoveries and stability of discoveries for each method. For RNA-seq data analysis, the EBSeq method is recommended for studies with sample size as small as 3 in each group, and the DESeq2 method is recommended for sample size of 6 or higher in each group when the data follow the negative binomial distribution. Both DESeq and DESeq2 methods are recommended when the data follow the log-normal distribution.

Indexed as

High-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingBinomial DistributionRNA-SeqSample SizeSequence Analysis, RNA

Identifiers

PMID36112652
PMCPMC9480998
OpenAlexW4296028038

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.