Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39545939›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of heredity2025

Sensitivity of transcriptomics: Different samples and methodology alter conclusions in Gulf pipefish (Syngnathus scovelli).

Bernadette D Johnson, Emily Rose, Adam G Jones

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of heredity, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Bernadette D JohnsonDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-9538-3045
Emily RoseDepartment of Biology, Valdosta State University, Valdosta, GA, United States.
Adam G JonesDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID, United States.

Funding

the National Science Foundation DEB-1953170
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Transcriptome analysis has become a central tool in evolutionary and functional genomics. However, variation among biological samples and analysis techniques can greatly influence results, potentially compromising insights into the phenomenon under study. Here, we evaluate differences in the brain transcriptome between female and male Gulf pipefish (Syngnathus scovelli). We perform comparisons between results from entire pipelines for brain transcriptome assembly, quantification, and analysis. We also offer a unique biological comparison between two sampling instances (Redfish Bay: n = 15, Port Lavaca: n = 7). Our results demonstrate crucial shortcomings with current experimental approaches. We found high variation within our results that was driven by both technical differences between pipelines and biological differences between pipefish samples. In our analysis of highly expressed genes, we found that the choice of methods influenced the degree of contamination or noise included in the identified genes. Notably, genes identified within the same pipeline were more similar than any other comparison. Our differential expression analysis revealed that both methodology and sampling location influenced the quantity and consistency of statistically significant transcripts. In the context of these results, we offer modifications to current practices that may increase the robustness of transcriptome-based conclusions. In particular, the use of a reference-guided assembly and an increase in sample sizes are likely to improve resistance to noise or error.

Indexed as

Gene Expression ProfilingSmegmamorphaTranscriptomeAnimalsBrainFemaleMalebraindifferential expressionfishSyngnathidaeteleosttranscriptomics

Identifiers

PMID39545939
PMCPMC11879219

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.