Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40324149›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2025

Replicability of bulk RNA-Seq differential expression and enrichment analysis results for small cohort sizes.

Peter Methys Degen, Matúš Medo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Alterations in energy production in aFrontiers in aging neuroscience · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
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

2 authors.

Peter Methys DegenDepartment for BioMedical Research, Radiation Oncology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.ORCID 0009-0004-0706-9200
Matúš MedoDepartment for BioMedical Research, Radiation Oncology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-8865-9085

Funding

Werner und Hedy Berger-Janser Foundation for cancer research
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The high-dimensional and heterogeneous nature of transcriptomics data from RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq) experiments poses a challenge to routine downstream analysis steps, such as differential expression analysis and enrichment analysis. Additionally, due to practical and financial constraints, RNA-Seq experiments are often limited to a small number of biological replicates. In light of recent studies on the low replicability of preclinical cancer research, it is essential to understand how the combination of population heterogeneity and underpowered cohort sizes affects the replicability of RNA-Seq research. Using 18'000 subsampled RNA-Seq experiments based on real gene expression data from 18 different data sets, we find that differential expression and enrichment analysis results from underpowered experiments are unlikely to replicate well. However, low replicability does not necessarily imply low precision of results, as data sets exhibit a wide range of possible outcomes. In fact, 10 out of 18 data sets achieve high median precision despite low recall and replicability for cohorts with more than five replicates. To assist researchers constrained by small cohort sizes in estimating the expected performance regime of their data sets, we provide a simple bootstrapping procedure that correlates strongly with the observed replicability and precision metrics. We conclude with practical recommendations to alleviate problems with underpowered RNA-Seq studies.

Indexed as

Gene Expression ProfilingRNA-SeqSequence Analysis, RNACohort StudiesComputational BiologyHumansReproducibility of ResultsTranscriptome

Identifiers

PMID40324149
PMCPMC12077797

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.