ArticleCurrent protocols2026
Incorporating Scale Uncertainty into Differential Expression Analyses Using ALDEx2.
Article in Current protocols, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Not every gene is special: Modelling scale controls the false discovery rate when analysing high-throughput sequencing data.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- Incorporating Scale Uncertainty into Differential Expression Analyses Using ALDEx2.Current protocols · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Differential abundance or expression analyses are routinely performed on metagenomic, metatranscriptomic, and amplicon sequencing data. In such datasets, analysts usually have no information regarding the true scale (i.e., size) of the microbial community or sample under study, with inter-sample differences in sequencing depth instead being driven by technical variation rather than biological factors. Recent work has demonstrated that normalizations used in all analysis tools make incorrect assumptions about the biological scale of the system in question, leading to unacceptably high false-discovery rates in the output. To mitigate this, analysts can acknowledge and account for the uncertainty of the overall system scale during normalization by building scale models of the data-a feature that has been integrated into the ALDEx2 R package. Here, we provide reproducible examples that demonstrate how to incorporate scale models into differential expression analyses of RNA-seq data using bulk transcriptome and metatranscriptomic datasets, as well as the consequences of not doing so. We also show how to use the output of ALDEx2 to create high-level exploratory visualizations of their data through principal component analysis. © 2026 The Author(s). Current Protocols published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. Basic Protocol 1: Using a simple scale model for differential expression analysis to avoid dual-cutoff P value/significance thresholds Basic Protocol 2: Implementing a full informed scale model to correct scale-related data asymmetry in differential expression analyses Basic Protocol 3: Visualizing ALDEx2 outputs using a compositional approach: Principal component 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.