CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 617Gene expression and cancer classificationGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesSingle-cell and spatial transcriptomics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 38 of the 38 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Removing technical variability in RNA-seq data using conditional quantile normalization

Open access
Hansen, K. D., Irizarry, R. A., WU, Z.·2012·Biostatistics
DOI 10.1093/biostatistics/kxr054PMC PMC3297825
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The ability to measure gene expression on a genome-wide scale is one of the most promising accomplishments in molecular biology. Microarrays, the technology that first permitted this, were riddled with problems due to unwanted sources of variability. Many of these problems are now mitigated, after a decade's worth of statistical methodology development. The recently developed RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) technology has generated much excitement in part due to claims of reduced variability in comparison to microarrays. However, we show that RNA-seq data demonstrate unwanted and obscuring variability similar to what was first observed in microarrays. In particular, we find guanine-cytosine content (GC-content) has a strong sample-specific effect on gene expression measurements that, if left uncorrected, leads to false positives in downstream results. We also report on commonly observed data distortions that demonstrate the need for data normalization. Here, we describe a statistical methodology that improves precision by 42% without loss of accuracy. Our resulting conditional quantile normalization algorithm combines robust generalized regression to remove systematic bias introduced by deterministic features such as GC-content and quantile normalization to correct for global distortions.

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/biostatistics/kxr054

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1. Exploratory plots. (a) The points show the frequency of counts in the bins shown on the x-axis. The 3 colors represent 3 samples (NA12812, NA12874, and NA11993) from the Montgomery data. (b) log2-RPKM values are stratified by GC-content for 2 biological replicates from the Montgomery data (NA11918 and NA12761) and are summarized by boxplots. The 2 samples are distinguished by the 2 colors (colors can be seen in the online version). Genes with average (across all 60 samples) log2-RPKM values below 2 are not shown. (c) Log fold changes between RPKM values from the 2 samples and the same genes shown in (b) were computed and are plotted against GC-content. Red is used to show the genes with the 10% highest GC-content and blue is used to show the genes with the 10% lowest GC-content. (d) RPKM log fold changes are plotted against average log2 counts for the samples and genes shown in (b), with the same color coding as in (c). (e) As (d) but from values corrected using the method proposed by Pickrell and others (2010). (f) As (d) but for values normalized using our approach (see Section 4).
Fig. 1. Exploratory plots. (a) The points show the frequency of counts in the bins shown on the x-axis. The 3 colors represent 3 samples (NA12812, NA12874, and NA11993) from the Montgomery data. (b) log2-RPKM values are stratified by GC-content for 2 biological replicates from the Montgomery data (NA11918 and NA12761) and are summarized by boxplots. The 2 samples are distinguished by the 2 colors (colors can be seen in the online version). Genes with average (across all 60 samples) log2-RPKM values below 2 are not shown. (c) Log fold changes between RPKM values from the 2 samples and the same genes shown in (b) were computed and are plotted against GC-content. Red is used to show the genes with the 10% highest GC-content and blue is used to show the genes with the 10% lowest GC-content. (d) RPKM log fold changes are plotted against average log2 counts for the samples and genes shown in (b), with the same color coding as in (c). (e) As (d) but from values corrected using the method proposed by Pickrell and others (2010). (f) As (d) but for values normalized using our approach (see Section 4).CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Fig. 2. Empirical distributions. (a) Empirical density estimates of log(Yg,i)−f^i,j(Xg,j) are shown for 6 samples from the Montgomery data. (b) A histogram of counts in a single sample for genes with a GC-content of 45 ± 1% and with a length between 500 and 2000 bp is shown.
Fig. 2. Empirical distributions. (a) Empirical density estimates of log(Yg,i)−f^i,j(Xg,j) are shown for 6 samples from the Montgomery data. (b) A histogram of counts in a single sample for genes with a GC-content of 45 ± 1% and with a length between 500 and 2000 bp is shown.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Fig. 3. Results from normalizing 60 samples. In these plots, we only show genes with a length greater than 100 bp and an average (across all 60 samples) standard log2-RPKM of 2 or greater. (a) Empirical density estimates of log2-RPKM for 5 different biological replicates from the Montgomery data are shown. (b) As (a) but CQN-normalized expression values on the log2-scale are shown. (c) The estimated GC-content effect are shown as curves for all 60 biological replicates in the Montgomery study. We created a 5 versus 5 comparison using the samples highlighted in blue (group 1) and red (group 2) (colors can be seen in the online version). (d) As (c) but curves are shown for the gene length effect instead of GC-content. (e) Average log fold change is plotted against GC-content. Here, we used RPKM values and compared group 2 to group 1. (f) Average log fold change is plotted against GC-content using CQN-normalized expression measures.
Fig. 3. Results from normalizing 60 samples. In these plots, we only show genes with a length greater than 100 bp and an average (across all 60 samples) standard log2-RPKM of 2 or greater. (a) Empirical density estimates of log2-RPKM for 5 different biological replicates from the Montgomery data are shown. (b) As (a) but CQN-normalized expression values on the log2-scale are shown. (c) The estimated GC-content effect are shown as curves for all 60 biological replicates in the Montgomery study. We created a 5 versus 5 comparison using the samples highlighted in blue (group 1) and red (group 2) (colors can be seen in the online version). (d) As (c) but curves are shown for the gene length effect instead of GC-content. (e) Average log fold change is plotted against GC-content. Here, we used RPKM values and compared group 2 to group 1. (f) Average log fold change is plotted against GC-content using CQN-normalized expression measures.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Fig. 4. Improved precision provided by CQN on comparisons across studies. (a) We show boxplots of the estimated log fold change between the 2 groups of 5 samples (the same 2 groups as in Figure 3) from the Montgomery data using standard RPKM, expression values normalized by TMM (trimmed median of M-values, the method proposed in Robinson and Oshlack, 2010), the method proposed in Pickrell and others (2010), and CQN with and without quantile normalization. We show genes with length greater than 100 bp and average (across all samples) log2-RPKM greater or equal to 2. (b) We normalized the 29 samples assayed in both Montgomery and Cheung. For each gene, we computed the mean squared difference between the expression measure based on the Montgomery and the Cheung data. The boxplots show the distribution of these precision measures for the highly expressed genes, for each of the 4 choices of normalization: standard RPKM, TMM, the method proposed in Pickrell and others (2010), and CQN. We show genes with length greater than 100 bp and average (across all samples) log2-RPKM greater or equal to 2. (c) For the MicroArray Quality Control data, we obtained fold change estimates between UHR and brain based on RNA-Seq and microarrays. For RNA-seq, we used 2 samples. For the microarrays, we used a 5 versus 5 comparison. The microarray data were normalized using Robust Multiarray Analysis, and the RNA-seq data were normalized by CQN.
Fig. 4. Improved precision provided by CQN on comparisons across studies. (a) We show boxplots of the estimated log fold change between the 2 groups of 5 samples (the same 2 groups as in Figure 3) from the Montgomery data using standard RPKM, expression values normalized by TMM (trimmed median of M-values, the method proposed in Robinson and Oshlack, 2010), the method proposed in Pickrell and others (2010), and CQN with and without quantile normalization. We show genes with length greater than 100 bp and average (across all samples) log2-RPKM greater or equal to 2. (b) We normalized the 29 samples assayed in both Montgomery and Cheung. For each gene, we computed the mean squared difference between the expression measure based on the Montgomery and the Cheung data. The boxplots show the distribution of these precision measures for the highly expressed genes, for each of the 4 choices of normalization: standard RPKM, TMM, the method proposed in Pickrell and others (2010), and CQN. We show genes with length greater than 100 bp and average (across all samples) log2-RPKM greater or equal to 2. (c) For the MicroArray Quality Control data, we obtained fold change estimates between UHR and brain based on RNA-Seq and microarrays. For RNA-seq, we used 2 samples. For the microarrays, we used a 5 versus 5 comparison. The microarray data were normalized using Robust Multiarray Analysis, and the RNA-seq data were normalized by CQN.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central

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

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?

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 38 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. 2011, SUPPL, 1), D800

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 601–617 of 617

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Hansen, K. D., Irizarry, R. A., & WU, Z.
Affiliations
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Brown University (US)
Corresponding author
WU, Z.
ORCID
Venue
Biostatistics
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2012-01-27
Volume
13
Issue
2
Pages
204-216
ISSN
  • 1465-4644 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-4357
DOI
10.1093/biostatistics/kxr054
PMC
PMC3297825
OpenAlex
W2170219300
Cited by
607
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 42 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 38 · 2022: 51 · 2021: 64 · 2020: 53 · 2019: 50 · 2018: 38 · 2017: 39 · 2016: 54 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 39 · 2013: 31 · 2012: 21
FWCI
14.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • Biostatistics (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Collection of Biostatistics Research Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1054905)
  • University of Memphis
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Human Genome Research Institute (R01HG004059, R01HG005220)
Topics
  • 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
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Single-cell and spatial transcriptomics
Keywords
RNA-seq, gene expression normalization, GC content bias, technical variability, false positives, quantile normalization, microarray comparison, data distortion
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Analysis of Variance, Base Composition, Humans, Sequence Analysis, RNA, Oligonucleotide Array Sequence Analysis, Gene Expression Profiling, Databases, Nucleic Acid, Biostatistics, 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