Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,302

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

EBSeq: an empirical Bayes hierarchical model for inference in RNA-seq experiments

Open access
Leng, Ning, Dawson, John A., Thomson, James A., Ruotti, Victor, Rissman, Anna I., Smits, Bart M. G., Haag, Jill D., Gould, Michael N., Stewart, Ron M., Kendziorski, Christina·2013·Bioinformatics

Abstract

Motivation: Messenger RNA expression is important in normal development and differentiation, as well as in manifestation of disease. RNA-seq experiments allow for the identification of differentially expressed (DE) genes and their corresponding isoforms on a genome-wide scale. However, statistical methods are required to ensure that accurate identifications are made. A number of methods exist for identifying DE genes, but far fewer are available for identifying DE isoforms. When isoform DE is of interest, investigators often apply gene-level (count-based) methods directly to estimates of isoform counts. Doing so is not recommended. In short, estimating isoform expression is relatively straightforward for some groups of isoforms, but more challenging for others. This results in estimation uncertainty that varies across isoform groups. Count-based methods were not designed to accommodate this varying uncertainty, and consequently, application of them for isoform inference results in reduced power for some classes of isoforms and increased false discoveries for others. Results: Taking advantage of the merits of empirical Bayesian methods, we have developed EBSeq for identifying DE isoforms in an RNA-seq experiment comparing two or more biological conditions. Results demonstrate substantially improved power and performance of EBSeq for identifying DE isoforms. EBSeq also proves to be a robust approach for identifying DE genes. Availability and implementation: An R package containing examples and sample datasets is available at http://www.biostat.wisc.edu/∼kendzior/EBSEQ/. Contact: kendzior@biostat.wisc.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/btt087

Cites

33 of 33 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 33 references

Cited by

See all 1,302

Metadata

Authors
Leng, N., Dawson, J. A., Thomson, J. A., Ruotti, V., Rissman, A. I., Smits, B. M. G., Haag, J. D., Gould, M. N., Stewart, R. M., & Kendziorski, C.
Venue
Bioinformatics
Published
2013-02-21
Volume
29
Issue
8
Pages
1035-1043
ISSN
  • 1367-4803 (ISSN-L)
  • 1367-4811
OpenAlex
W2124097252
Cited by
1,302
References
33
FWCI
35.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: EBSeq: an empirical Bayes hierarchical model for inference in RNA-seq experiments. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/bioinformatics/btt087
The paper
Leng, N., Dawson, J. A., Thomson, J. A., Ruotti, V., Rissman, A. I., Smits, B. M. G., Haag, J. D., Gould, M. N., Stewart, R. M., & Kendziorski, C. (2013). EBSeq: an empirical Bayes hierarchical model for inference in RNA-seq experiments. Bioinformatics. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btt087

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.