Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36592056›Full record

ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2023

Systematic benchmarking of statistical methods to assess differential expression of circular RNAs.

Alessia Buratin, Stefania Bortoluzzi, Enrico Gaffo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Improving confidence of differential transcription calls in enhancers.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  5. 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

3 authors.

Alessia BuratinDepartment of Molecular Medicine, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
Stefania BortoluzziDepartment of Molecular Medicine, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-8240-3070
Enrico GaffoDepartment of Molecular Medicine, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-6338-7677

Funding

Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro #20052Ministero dell'Istruzione, dell'Università e della Ricerca #2017PPS2X4_003
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Circular RNAs (circRNAs) are covalently closed transcripts involved in critical regulatory axes, cancer pathways and disease mechanisms. CircRNA expression measured with RNA-seq has particular characteristics that might hamper the performance of standard biostatistical differential expression assessment methods (DEMs). We compared 38 DEM pipelines configured to fit circRNA expression data's statistical properties, including bulk RNA-seq, single-cell RNA-seq (scRNA-seq) and metagenomics DEMs. The DEMs performed poorly on data sets of typical size. Widely used DEMs, such as DESeq2, edgeR and Limma-Voom, gave scarce results, unreliable predictions or even contravened the expected behaviour with some parameter configurations. Limma-Voom achieved the most consistent performance throughout different benchmark data sets and, as well as SAMseq, reasonably balanced false discovery rate (FDR) and recall rate. Interestingly, a few scRNA-seq DEMs obtained results comparable with the best-performing bulk RNA-seq tools. Almost all DEMs' performance improved when increasing the number of replicates. CircRNA expression studies require careful design, choice of DEM and DEM configuration. This analysis can guide scientists in selecting the appropriate tools to investigate circRNA differential expression with RNA-seq experiments.

Indexed as

BenchmarkingRNA, CircularMetagenomicsRNARNA-SeqSequence Analysis, RNARNARNA, CircularbenchmarkCircRNAdifferential expressionlow-expressionRNA-seq

Identifiers

PMID36592056
PMCPMC9851295

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.