ArticlePeerJ2022
bestDEG: a web-based application automatically combines various tools to precisely predict differentially expressed genes (DEGs) from RNA-Seq data.
Article in PeerJ, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- GeneSEA Explorer: An R Shiny Tool for Differential Gene Expression Analysis With Shannon's Entropy Aggregation.Biotechnology and bioengineering · 2026Article
- COMPOSITUM 2/ WHEAT FRIZZY PANICLE dosage dependently regulates inflorescence and root architecture in Triticeae cereals.The Plant journal : for cell and molecular biology · 2026Article
- RNA-SeqEZPZ: a point-and-click pipeline for comprehensive transcriptomics analysis with interactive visualizations.GigaScience · 2026Article
- Critical Differential Expression Assessment for Individual Bulk RNA-Seq Projects.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Screening of four signature genes for clinical testing through bioinformatics and in vitro methods in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.American journal of cancer research · 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Differential gene expression analysis using RNA sequencing technology (RNA-Seq) has become the most popular technique in transcriptome research. Although many R packages have been developed to analyze differentially expressed genes (DEGs), several evaluations have shown that no single DEG analysis method outperforms all others. The validity of DEG identification could be increased by using multiple methods and producing the consensus results. However, DEG analysis methods are complex and most of them require prior knowledge of a programming language or command-line shell. Users who do not have this knowledge need to invest time and effort to acquire it. Methods: We developed a novel web application called "bestDEG" to automatically analyze DEGs with different tools and compare the results. A differential expression (DE) analysis pipeline was created combining the edgeR, DESeq2, NOISeq, and EBSeq packages; selected because they use different statistical methods to identify DEGs. bestDEG was evaluated on human datasets from the MicroArray Quality Control (MAQC) project. Results: The performance of the bestDEG web application with the human datasets showed excellent results, and the consensus method outperformed the other DE analysis methods in terms of precision (94.71%) and specificity (97.01%). bestDEG is a rapid and efficient tool to analyze DEGs. With bestDEG, users can select DE analysis methods and parameters in the user-friendly web interface. bestDEG also provides a Venn diagram and a table of results. Moreover, the consensus method of this tool can maximize the precision or minimize the false discovery rate (FDR), which reduces the cost of gene expression validation by minimizing wet-lab experiments.
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.