ArticleBioinformatics and biology insights2024
A Comparative Study of Algorithms Detecting Differential Rhythmicity in Transcriptomic Data.
Article in Bioinformatics and biology insights, 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.
- Remodeling of the hepatic circadian transcriptome across the estrous cycle.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Rhythmic transcripts play pivotal roles in driving the daily oscillations of various biological processes. Genetic or environmental disruptions can lead to alterations in the rhythmicity of transcripts, ultimately impacting downstream circadian outputs, including metabolic processes and even behavior. To statistically compare the differences in transcript rhythms between 2 or more conditions, several algorithms have been developed to analyze circadian transcriptomic data, each with distinct features. In this study, we compared the performance of 7 algorithms that were specifically designed to detect differential rhythmicity (DODR, LimoRhyde, CircaCompare, compareRhythms, diffCircadian, dryR, and RepeatedCircadian). We found that even when applying the same statistical threshold, these algorithms yielded varying numbers of differentially rhythmic transcripts, most likely because each algorithm defines rhythmic and differentially rhythmic transcripts differently. Nevertheless, the output for the differential phase and amplitude were identical between dryR and compareRhyhms, and diffCircadian and CircaCompare, while the output from LimoRhyde2 was highly correlated with that from diffCircadian and CircaCompare. Because each algorithm has unique requirements for input data and reports different information as an output, it is crucial to ensure the compatibility of input data with the chosen algorithm and assess whether the algorithm's output fits the user's needs when selecting an algorithm for analysis.
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.