Cited by 6,231Gene expression and cancer classificationSingle-cell and spatial transcriptomicsGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies

The <tt>sva</tt> package for removing batch effects and other unwanted variation in high-throughput experiments

Open access
Leek, Jeffrey T., Johnson, W. Evan, Parker, Hilary S., Jaffe, Andrew E., Storey, John D.·2012·Bioinformatics

Abstract

Summary: Heterogeneity and latent variables are now widely recognized as major sources of bias and variability in high-throughput experiments. The most well-known source of latent variation in genomic experiments are batch effects—when samples are processed on different days, in different groups or by different people. However, there are also a large number of other variables that may have a major impact on high-throughput measurements. Here we describe the sva package for identifying, estimating and removing unwanted sources of variation in high-throughput experiments. The sva package supports surrogate variable estimation with the sva function, direct adjustment for known batch effects with the ComBat function and adjustment for batch and latent variables in prediction problems with the fsva function. Availability: The R package sva is freely available from http://www.bioconductor.org. Contact: jleek@jhsph.edu 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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/bioinformatics/bts034

Cites

12 of 12 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?

  • Surrogate variable analysis was used to detect hidden technical or biological factors that may influence brain protein expression, and significant surrogate variables were adjusted for as covariates.

    “The surrogate variable analysis (SVA) method in the sva R package (version 3.52.0) 45 was used to detect potentially hidden variables that may influence brain protein expression.”
  • sva and PEER, which use data across all sites, removed 85.1% to 87.7% of the original total false positive DEGs.

    “Some methods (specifically sva and PEER) that leveraged all data across all sites were quite successful at ameliorating the high rate of false positives (Fig. 1, Supplementary Fig. 2), removing 85.1% to 87.7% of the original total false positive DEGs.”
  • More than 85% of RNA-seq false positives could be removed by subtracting latent variable effects identified by sva or PEER through joint analysis of all genes across multiple sites, without decreasing sensitivity or specificity of DEG detection.

    “However, the majority of RNA-seq false positives (>85%) could successfully be removed by subtracting the effects of latent variables identified by either sva26,27 or PEER30, which could be achieved by jointly analyzing the set of measurements of all genes across multiple sites, without a decrease in the sensitivity or specificity of DEG detection at each site or across sites.”
  • Both library types had similar accuracy as measured by Matthews correlation coefficient when compared to 802 TaqMan assays.

    “Both library types had similar accuracy as measured by Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC, Fig. 5d)40, 41, which is a joint measure of the assay’s sensitivity and specificity.”
  • Batch correction was performed for each cell type separately using ComBat.

    “Batch correction was performed for each cell type separately using ComBat as implemented in the R package sva (Leek et al., 2012), using the default parametric adjustment mode.”

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
Leek, J. T., Johnson, W. E., Parker, H. S., Jaffe, A. E., & Storey, J. D.
Affiliations
Boston University (US)
Corresponding author
Leek, Jeffrey T.
Venue
Bioinformatics
Published
2012-01-17
Volume
28
Issue
6
Pages
882-883
ISSN
  • 1367-4803 (ISSN-L)
  • 1367-4811
OpenAlex
W2169353806
Cited by
6,231
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 747 · 2025: 920 · 2024: 941 · 2023: 792 · 2022: 749 · 2021: 708 · 2020: 432 · 2019: 326 · 2018: 218 · 2017: 153 · 2016: 112 · 2015: 66 · 2014: 37 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 7
FWCI
16.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Bioinformatics (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Human Genome Research Institute (R01HG002913)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM103552)
  • National Center for Research Resources (R01RR021967, RR021967)
Topics
  • 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
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Keywords
batch effects, surrogate variable analysis, latent variables, high-throughput experimentation, genomic data, combat, R package, bias removal
MeSH terms
Urinary Bladder Neoplasms, Humans, Regression Analysis, Software, Gene Expression Profiling, Genomics, High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing

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