Cited by 1,534Gene expression and cancer classificationGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesSingle-cell and spatial transcriptomics

Differential analysis of RNA-seq incorporating quantification uncertainty

Open access
Pimentel, Harold, Bray, Nicolas L, Puente, Suzette, Melsted, Páll, Pachter, Lior·2017·Nature Methods

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

We describe sleuth (http://pachterlab.github.io/sleuth), a method for the differential analysis of gene expression data that utilizes bootstrapping in conjunction with response error linear modeling to decouple biological variance from inferential variance. sleuth is implemented in an interactive shiny app that utilizes kallisto quantifications and bootstraps for fast and accurate analysis of data from RNA-seq experiments.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nmeth.4324

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Regularization by combining information across similar genes is commonly applied in learning error models for bulk RNA-seq in differential expression analysis, but has not been previously applied in this context for single-cell normalization.

    “This approach is commonly applied in learning error models for bulk RNA-seq in the context of differential expression analysis [22–25], but to our knowledge has not been previously applied in this context for single-cell normalization.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. Hardcastle, T. J. & Kelly, K. A. baySeq: Empirical Bayesian methods for identifying differential expression in sequence count data. BMC Bioinformatics 11, 422 (2010).
  2. Anders, S. & Huber, W. Differential expression analysis for sequence count data. Genome Biol. 11, R106 (2010).
  3. Law, C. W., Chen, Y., Shi, W. & Smyth, G. K. voom: precision weights unlock linear model analysis tools for RNA-seq read counts. Genome Biol. 15, R29 (2014).
  4. Robinson, M. D. & Smyth, G. K. Small-sample estimation of negative binomial dispersion, with applications to SAGE data. Biostatistics 9, 321-332 (2008).
  5. Li, J. & Tibshirani, R. Finding consistent patterns: A nonparametric approach for identifying differential expression in RNA-Seq data. Stat. Methods Med. Res. (2011). doi:10.1177/0962280211428386 · DOI
  6. Soneson, C., Love, M. I. & Robinson, M. D. Differential analyses for RNA-seq: transcript-level estimates improve gene-level inferences. F1000Research 4, 1521 (2016).
  7. Teng, M. et al. A benchmark for RNA-seq quantification pipelines. Genome Biol. 17, 74 (2016).
  8. Germain, P.-L. et al. RNAontheBENCH: computational and empirical resources for benchmarking RNAseq quantification and differential expression methods. Nucleic Acids Res. gkw448 (2016). doi:10.1093/nar/gkw448 · DOI
  9. Bottomly, D. et al. Evaluating Gene Expression in C57BL/6J and DBA/2J Mouse Striatum Using RNA-Seq and Microarrays. PLOS ONE 6, e17820 (2011).
  10. Buonaccorsi, J. P. Measurement Error: Models, Methods, and Applications. (CRC Press, 2010).
  11. Rocke, D. M., Ruan, L., Gossett, J. J., Durbin-Johnson, B. & Aviran, S. Controlling False Positive Rates in Methods for Differential Gene Expression Analysis using RNA-Seq Data. bioRxiv 018739 (2015). doi:10.1101/018739 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pimentel, H., Bray, N. L., Puente, S., Melsted, P., & Pachter, L.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
  • Innovative Genomics Institute (US)
  • University of Iceland (IS)
  • California Institute of Technology (US)
Corresponding author
Pachter, Lior
Venue
Nature Methods
Published
2017-06-05
Volume
14
Issue
7
Pages
687-690
ISSN
  • 1548-7091 (ISSN-L)
  • 1548-7105
OpenAlex
W2620721366
Cited by
1,534
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 81 · 2025: 120 · 2024: 164 · 2023: 166 · 2022: 222 · 2021: 249 · 2020: 189 · 2019: 185 · 2018: 111 · 2017: 37 · 2016: 7 · 2012: 1
FWCI
59.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Methods (publishedVersion)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • CaltechAUTHORS (California Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (NIH-R01)
  • National Human Genome Research Institute (R01HG006129)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R01DK094699)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene expression and cancer classification
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Single-cell and spatial transcriptomics
Keywords
differential gene expression, RNA-seq, Sleuth, bootstrapping, Shiny app, uncertainty quantification
MeSH terms
Base Sequence, Computer Simulation, Models, Biological, RNA, Software, Gene Expression

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review