Cited by 424Gene expression and cancer classificationGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesSingle-cell and spatial transcriptomics

Comparison of software packages for detecting differential expression in RNA-seq studies

Open access
Seyednasrollah, F., Laiho, A., Elo, L. L.·2015·Briefings in Bioinformatics

Abstract

RNA-sequencing (RNA-seq) has rapidly become a popular tool to characterize transcriptomes. A fundamental research problem in many RNA-seq studies is the identification of reliable molecular markers that show differential expression between distinct sample groups. Together with the growing popularity of RNA-seq, a number of data analysis methods and pipelines have already been developed for this task. Currently, however, there is no clear consensus about the best practices yet, which makes the choice of an appropriate method a daunting task especially for a basic user without a strong statistical or computational background. To assist the choice, we perform here a systematic comparison of eight widely used software packages and pipelines for detecting differential expression between sample groups in a practical research setting and provide general guidelines for choosing a robust pipeline. In general, our results demonstrate how the data analysis tool utilized can markedly affect the outcome of the data analysis, highlighting the importance of this choice.

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 · 10.1093/bib/bbt086

Cites

27 of 27 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?

  • Recent independent comparison studies have demonstrated that the choice of the method (or even the version of a software package) can markedly affect the outcome of the analysis and that no single method is likely to perform favorably for all datasets.

    “Recent independent comparison studies have demonstrated that the choice of the method (or even the version of a software package) can markedly affect the outcome of the analysis and that no single method is likely to perform favorably for all datasets [56, 63, 64]”

    From A survey of best practices for RNA-seq data analysis (2016) · cites this paper as [64]

  • All differential expression methods require caution when the number of replicates is very small or for very lowly expressed genes.

    “First, specific caution is needed with all the methods when the number of replicate samples is very small or for genes that are expressed at very low levels [55, 64, 209].”

    From A survey of best practices for RNA-seq data analysis (2016) · cites this paper as [64]

  • Because simulations rely on specific distributions or limited datasets and spike-in datasets have only technical replicates with minimal variation, comparisons have been complemented with real datasets with true biological replicates.

    “As simulations typically rely on specific statistical distributions or on limited experimental datasets and as spike-in datasets represent only technical replicates with minimal variation, comparisons using simulated datasets have been complemented with more practical comparisons in real datasets with true biological replicates [64, 210, 211].”

    From A survey of best practices for RNA-seq data analysis (2016) · cites this paper as [64]

  • limma performs well under many circumstances and is the fastest to run among the tools.

    “Among the tools, limma has been shown to perform well under many circumstances and it is also the fastest to run [56, 63, 64].”

    From A survey of best practices for RNA-seq data analysis (2016) · cites this paper as [64]

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Seyednasrollah, F., Laiho, A., & Elo, L. L.
Affiliations
University of Turku (FI)
Corresponding author
Elo, L. L.
Venue
Briefings in Bioinformatics
Published
2013-12-02
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
59-70
ISSN
  • 1467-5463 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-4054
OpenAlex
W2123579165
Cited by
421
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 39 · 2020: 41 · 2019: 41 · 2018: 39 · 2017: 55 · 2016: 52 · 2015: 32 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 1
FWCI
15.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Briefings in Bioinformatics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Academy of Finland
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, software comparison, bioinformatics pipeline, molecular markers, gene expression profiling
MeSH terms
Animals, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Software, Sequence Analysis, RNA, Mice, Transcriptome

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