Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38914930›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2024

A comprehensive workflow for optimizing RNA-seq data analysis.

Gao Jiang, Juan-Yu Zheng, Shu-Ning Ren, Weilun Yin, Xinli Xia, Yun Li, Hou-Ling Wang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Microbial Omics.Progress in molecular and subcellular biology · 2026
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

7 authors.

Gao JiangSchool of Information Science and Technology, School of Artificial Intelligence, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing, 100083, People's Republic of China.
Juan-Yu ZhengSchool of Information Science and Technology, School of Artificial Intelligence, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing, 100083, People's Republic of China.
Shu-Ning RenState Key Laboratory of Tree Genetics and Breeding, National Engineering Research Center of Tree Breeding and Ecological Restoration, College of Biological Sciences and Technology, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing, 100083, People's Republic of China.
Weilun YinState Key Laboratory of Tree Genetics and Breeding, National Engineering Research Center of Tree Breeding and Ecological Restoration, College of Biological Sciences and Technology, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing, 100083, People's Republic of China.
Xinli XiaState Key Laboratory of Tree Genetics and Breeding, National Engineering Research Center of Tree Breeding and Ecological Restoration, College of Biological Sciences and Technology, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing, 100083, People's Republic of China.
Yun LiSchool of Information Science and Technology, School of Artificial Intelligence, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing, 100083, People's Republic of China. liyun@bjfu.edu.cn.
Hou-Ling WangState Key Laboratory of Tree Genetics and Breeding, National Engineering Research Center of Tree Breeding and Ecological Restoration, College of Biological Sciences and Technology, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing, 100083, People's Republic of China. whling@bjfu.edu.cn.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCurrent RNA-seq analysis software for RNA-seq data tends to use similar parameters across different species without considering species-specific differences. However, the suitability and accuracy of these tools may vary when analyzing data from different species, such as humans, animals, plants, fungi, and bacteria. For most laboratory researchers lacking a background in information science, determining how to construct an analysis workflow that meets their specific needs from the array of complex analytical tools available poses a significant challenge.

resultsBy utilizing RNA-seq data from plants, animals, and fungi, it was observed that different analytical tools demonstrate some variations in performance when applied to different species. A comprehensive experiment was conducted specifically for analyzing plant pathogenic fungal data, focusing on differential gene analysis as the ultimate goal. In this study, 288 pipelines using different tools were applied to analyze five fungal RNA-seq datasets, and the performance of their results was evaluated based on simulation. This led to the establishment of a relatively universal and superior fungal RNA-seq analysis pipeline that can serve as a reference, and certain standards for selecting analysis tools were derived for reference. Additionally, we compared various tools for alternative splicing analysis. The results based on simulated data indicated that rMATS remained the optimal choice, although consideration could be given to supplementing with tools such as SpliceWiz.

conclusionThe experimental results demonstrate that, in comparison to the default software parameter configurations, the analysis combination results after tuning can provide more accurate biological insights. It is beneficial to carefully select suitable analysis software based on the data, rather than indiscriminately choosing tools, in order to achieve high-quality analysis results more efficiently.

Indexed as

RNA-SeqSoftwareWorkflowAlternative SplicingComputational BiologyFungiSequence Analysis, RNADifferential gene analysisRNA-seq dataSoftware comparison

Identifiers

PMID38914930
PMCPMC11197194

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.