Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39152483›Full record

ArticleGenome biology2024

Overlooked poor-quality patient samples in sequencing data impair reproducibility of published clinically relevant datasets.

Maximilian Sprang, Jannik Möllmann, Miguel A Andrade-Navarro, Jean-Fred Fontaine

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genome biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

4 authors.

Maximilian SprangFaculty of Biology, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, Biozentrum I, Hans-Dieter-Hüsch-Weg 15, Mainz, 55128, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8438-4747
Jannik MöllmannFaculty of Biology, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, Biozentrum I, Hans-Dieter-Hüsch-Weg 15, Mainz, 55128, Germany.
Miguel A Andrade-NavarroFaculty of Biology, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, Biozentrum I, Hans-Dieter-Hüsch-Weg 15, Mainz, 55128, Germany. andrade@uni-mainz.de.
Jean-Fred FontaineFaculty of Biology, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, Biozentrum I, Hans-Dieter-Hüsch-Weg 15, Mainz, 55128, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1101-4091

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundReproducibility is a major concern in biomedical studies, and existing publication guidelines do not solve the problem. Batch effects and quality imbalances between groups of biological samples are major factors hampering reproducibility. Yet, the latter is rarely considered in the scientific literature.

resultsOur analysis uses 40 clinically relevant RNA-seq datasets to quantify the impact of quality imbalance between groups of samples on the reproducibility of gene expression studies. High-quality imbalance is frequent (14 datasets; 35%), and hundreds of quality markers are present in more than 50% of the datasets. Enrichment analysis suggests common stress-driven effects among the low-quality samples and highlights a complementary role of transcription factors and miRNAs to regulate stress response. Preliminary ChIP-seq results show similar trends. Quality imbalance has an impact on the number of differential genes derived by comparing control to disease samples (the higher the imbalance, the higher the number of genes), on the proportion of quality markers in top differential genes (the higher the imbalance, the higher the proportion; up to 22%) and on the proportion of known disease genes in top differential genes (the higher the imbalance, the lower the proportion). We show that removing outliers based on their quality score improves the resulting downstream analysis.

conclusionsThanks to a stringent selection of well-designed datasets, we demonstrate that quality imbalance between groups of samples can significantly reduce the relevance of differential genes, consequently reducing reproducibility between studies. Appropriate experimental design and analysis methods can substantially reduce the problem.

Indexed as

Sequence Analysis, RNAHumansReproducibility of ResultsBioinformaticsChIP-seqClinical datasetsQualityQuality markersRNA-seq

Identifiers

PMID39152483
PMCPMC11328481

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.