Distilling Direct Effects via Conditional Differential Gene Expression Analysis
Open accessAbstract
Motivation: Differential gene expression (DGE) analysis is foundational for interpreting RNA sequencing data, but it conflates direct biological effects with correlations propagated through gene co-expression. Across three RNA sequencing datasets (including a genome-scale perturb-seq experiment), we find that only a small fraction of differentially expressed genes have direct effects on the trait of interest, while the majority are undirected or passengers whose associations are mediated through other genes. Results: To distinguish direct effect genes, we introduce conditional differential gene expression (CDGE) analysis, a framework that tests for conditional rather than marginal association between each gene and the trait of interest. Implemented via the GhostKnockoff procedure with lasso regression, CDGE delivers false discovery rate control, operates on summary statistics from existing DGE pipelines, and accommodates batch effects. The genes identified by CDGE mediate the effects of most other differentially expressed genes and show stronger enrichment for known protein-protein interactions and biological pathways than DGE-identified genes. These results suggest that the field has been systematically over-interpreting DGE outputs, and that distinguishing direct from mediated effects is essential for prioritizing genes for functional follow-up and therapeutic development. Availability: To facilitate public access to knockoff-based CDGE analysis, we have developed the R package “KnockoffCDGE” as an integrated implementation, which is freely available at https://github.com/GuJQ5/KnockoffCDGE (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.23241517). Supplementary information: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
- Authors
- Gu, J., Skelton, A., Staley, J., Popson, P., Peng, L., Song, X., Knowles, J., & He, Z.
- Affiliations
- University of South Florida (US)
- UCB Pharma (United Kingdom) (GB)
- Stanford University (US)
- Duke-NUS Medical School (SG)
- Stanford Medicine (US)
- Corresponding author
- Gu, Jiaqi
- He, Zihuai
- Venue
- Bioinformatics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2026-10-20
- ISSN
- 1367-4803 (ISSN-L)
- 1367-4811
- OpenAlex
- W7223035308
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Bioinformatics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- McKnight Foundation
- National Institutes of Health (AG066515)
- National Institute on Aging (AG089509, AG066206, AG066515)
- National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
- Stanford Maternal and Child Health Research Institute
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bioinformatics and Genomic Networks
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene expression and cancer classification
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Single-cell and spatial transcriptomics
- Keywords
- direct effect, indirect effects, gene co-expression, LASSO, false discovery rate control, batch effects, RNA sequencing, protein-protein interaction
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