ArticlePLoS computational biology2026
Not every gene is special: Modelling scale controls the false discovery rate when analysing high-throughput sequencing data.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2026. 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.
- 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Differential expression/abundance analyses are commonplace in studies employing high-throughput sequencing (HTS); however different tools often fail to return comparable results when applied to the same dataset. Most tools employ normalisations to attempt to correct for technical variation in the count data. Previously, we demonstrated that these normalisations are often inappropriate due to incorrect assumptions regarding the overall scale (i.e., size) of the biological system in question. In this study, we used a combination of binomial thinning and permutation of sample groupings to produce 100 analysis iterations of 11 RNA-seq and other HTS datasets in which ~5% of all features are expected to be significantly different between groups. This enabled calculation of the false discovery rate (FDR) and sensitivity across the iterations. Our simulations showed that scale misspecification results in poor control of the FDR by several commonly used tools and that, counterintuitively, FDRs increased as the modelled difference between groups increased. Implementing a scale model in ALDEx2 or ALDEx3 ameliorated unacceptably high FDRs; however, there was an inherent trade-off between satisfactory FDR control and high sensitivity- no tool offered both. We established that increasing scale uncertainty also increased the minimum difference between groups required for a feature to be reported as differentially expressed. This phenomenon was consistently observed in disparate types of HTS data and was remarkably consistent. Critically, we leveraged a 'real-world', non-permuted analysis of an RNA-seq dataset to demonstrate that the latter effect is not a result of our thinning/permutation approach. Overall, our work highlights the potentially unwitting choice between sensitivity and FDR control that all researchers are making when analysing sequencing data and provides guidance on choosing an appropriate amount of scale uncertainty for the analysis of HTS data.
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.