Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 2,788

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

RSeQC: quality control of RNA-seq experiments

Open access
Wang, Liguo, Wang, Shengqin, Li, Wei·2012·Bioinformatics

Abstract

Motivation: RNA-seq has been extensively used for transcriptome study. Quality control (QC) is critical to ensure that RNA-seq data are of high quality and suitable for subsequent analyses. However, QC is a time-consuming and complex task, due to the massive size and versatile nature of RNA-seq data. Therefore, a convenient and comprehensive QC tool to assess RNA-seq quality is sorely needed. Results: We developed the RSeQC package to comprehensively evaluate different aspects of RNA-seq experiments, such as sequence quality, GC bias, polymerase chain reaction bias, nucleotide composition bias, sequencing depth, strand specificity, coverage uniformity and read distribution over the genome structure. RSeQC takes both SAM and BAM files as input, which can be produced by most RNA-seq mapping tools as well as BED files, which are widely used for gene models. Most modules in RSeQC take advantage of R scripts for visualization, and they are notably efficient in dealing with large BAM/SAM files containing hundreds of millions of alignments. Availability and implementation: RSeQC is written in Python and C. Source code and a comprehensive user's manual are freely available at: http://code.google.com/p/rseqc/. Contact: WL1@bcm.edu Supplementary Information: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

Overview

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/bts356

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Benjamini, 2012, Summarizing and correcting the GC content bias in high-throughput sequencing, Nucleic Acids Res., 40, e72, 10.1093/nar/gks001 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Goecks, 2010, Galaxy: a comprehensive approach for supporting accessible, reproducible, and transparent computational research in the life sciences, Genome Biol., 11, R86, 10.1186/gb-2010-11-8-r86 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Lassmann, 2011, SAMStat: monitoring biases in next generation sequencing data, Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 27, 130
  4. Planet, 2012, htSeqTools: high-throughput sequencing quality control, processing and visualization in R, Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 28, 589
  5. Reich, 2006, GenePattern 2.0, Nat. Genet., 38, 500, 10.1038/ng0506-500 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

See all 2,788

Metadata

Authors
Wang, L., Wang, S., & Li, W.
Venue
Bioinformatics
Published
2012-06-27
Volume
28
Issue
16
Pages
2184-2185
ISSN
  • 1367-4803 (ISSN-L)
  • 1367-4811
OpenAlex
W2137586531
Cited by
2,788
References
2
FWCI
16.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: RSeQC: quality control of RNA-seq experiments. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/bioinformatics/bts356
The paper
Wang, L., Wang, S., & Li, W. (2012). RSeQC: quality control of RNA-seq experiments. Bioinformatics. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bts356

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.