Cited by 87Single-cell and spatial transcriptomicsGene expression and cancer classificationGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies

Comparison of methods to detect differentially expressed genes between single-cell populations

Open access
Jaakkola, Maria K., Seyednasrollah, Fatemeh, Mehmood, Arfa, Elo, Laura L.·2016·Briefings in Bioinformatics

Abstract

We compared five statistical methods to detect differentially expressed genes between two distinct single-cell populations. Currently, it remains unclear whether differential expression methods developed originally for conventional bulk RNA-seq data can also be applied to single-cell RNA-seq data analysis. Our results in three diverse comparison settings showed marked differences between the different methods in terms of the number of detections as well as their sensitivity and specificity. They, however, did not reveal systematic benefits of the currently available single-cell-specific methods. Instead, our previously introduced reproducibility-optimization method showed good performance in all comparison settings without any single-cell-specific modifications.

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/bbw057

Cites

21 of 21 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?

  • Tools built specifically to handle single-cell data do not appear to perform better than tools created for bulk data analysis.

    “The result is reduced reproducibility with real data, leading to the conclusion that tools built specifically to handle single-cell data do not appear to perform better than tools created for bulk data analysis22–24.”

    From A practical solution to pseudoreplication bias in single-cell studies (2021) · cites this paper as [24]

    The Conclusions say the comparison found no systematic benefit for single-cell-specific methods overall. But they also say the two methods originally developed for bulk RNA-seq, DESeq and Limma, were unsuitable for unmodified single-cell analysis; the general-purpose method ROTS performed well. The claim therefore overstates the finding as a comparison specifically against bulk-data tools. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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
Jaakkola, M. K., Seyednasrollah, F., Mehmood, A., & Elo, L. L.
Affiliations
University of Turku (FI)
Corresponding author
Jaakkola, Maria K.
Venue
Briefings in Bioinformatics
Published
2016-07-03
Volume
18
Issue
5
Pages
bbw057
ISSN
  • 1467-5463 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-4054
OpenAlex
W2468855952
Cited by
86
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 11
FWCI
5.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Briefings in Bioinformatics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UTUPub (University of Turku) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Turun Yliopisto
  • Turun yliopiston tutkijakoulu
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Single-cell and spatial transcriptomics
  • 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
Keywords
differentially expressed genes, single-cell RNA sequencing, method comparison, sensitivity and specificity
MeSH terms
RNA, Reproducibility of Results, Gene Expression, Sequence Analysis, RNA, Gene Expression Profiling, Single-Cell Analysis

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