ArticlePloS one2024
Comparison and development of cross-study normalization methods for inter-species transcriptional analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Exploring EZH2-Linked lncRNAs in Gastric Cancer: Insights from Sequencing Data and Gene Modulation.Biochemical genetics · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Performing joint analysis of gene expression datasets from different experiments can present challenges brought on by multiple factors-differences in equipment, protocols, climate etc. "Cross-study normalization" is a general term for transformations aimed at eliminating such effects, thus making datasets more comparable. However, joint analysis of datasets from different species is rarely done, and there are no dedicated normalization methods for such inter-species analysis. In order to test the usefulness of cross-studies normalization methods for inter-species analysis, we first applied three cross-study normalization methods, EB, DWD and XPN, to RNA sequencing datasets from different species. We then developed a new approach to evaluate the performance of cross-study normalization in eliminating experimental effects, while also maintaining the biologically significant differences between species and conditions. Our results indicate that all normalization methods performed relatively well in the cross-species setting. We found XPN to be better at reducing experimental differences, and found EB to be better at preserving biological differences. Still, according to our in-silico experiments, in all methods it is not possible to enforce the preservation of the biological differences in the normalization process. In addition to the study above, in this work we propose a new dedicated cross-studies and cross-species normalization method. Our aim is to address the shortcoming mentioned above: in the normalization process, we wish to reduce the experimental differences while preserving the biological differences. We term our method as CSN, and base it on the performance evaluation criteria mentioned above. Repeating the same experiments, the CSN method obtained a better and more balanced conservation of biological differences within the datasets compared to existing methods. To summarize, we demonstrate the usefulness of cross-study normalization methods in the inter-species settings, and suggest a dedicated cross-study cross-species normalization method that will hopefully open the way to the development of improved normalization methods for the inter-species settings.
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.