Cited by 310Genomics and Phylogenetic StudiesGene expression and cancer classificationSingle-cell and spatial transcriptomics

A comprehensive comparison of RNA-Seq-based transcriptome analysis from reads to differential gene expression and cross-comparison with microarrays: a case study in Saccharomyces cerevisiae

Open access
Nookaew, Intawat, Papini, Marta, Pornputtapong, Natapol, Scalcinati, Gionata, Fagerberg, Linn, Uhlén, Matthias, Nielsen, Jens·2012·Nucleic Acids Research

Abstract

RNA-seq, has recently become an attractive method of choice in the studies of transcriptomes, promising several advantages compared with microarrays. In this study, we sought to assess the contribution of the different analytical steps involved in the analysis of RNA-seq data generated with the Illumina platform, and to perform a cross-platform comparison based on the results obtained through Affymetrix microarray. As a case study for our work we, used the Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain CEN.PK 113-7D, grown under two different conditions (batch and chemostat). Here, we asses the influence of genetic variation on the estimation of gene expression level using three different aligners for read-mapping (Gsnap, Stampy and TopHat) on S288c genome, the capabilities of five different statistical methods to detect differential gene expression (baySeq, Cuffdiff, DESeq, edgeR and NOISeq) and we explored the consistency between RNA-seq analysis using reference genome and de novo assembly approach. High reproducibility among biological replicates (correlation≥0.99) and high consistency between the two platforms for analysis of gene expression levels (correlation≥0.91) are reported. The results from differential gene expression identification derived from the different statistical methods, as well as their integrated analysis results based on gene ontology annotation are in good agreement. Overall, our study provides a useful and comprehensive comparison between the two platforms (RNA-seq and microrrays) for gene expression analysis and addresses the contribution of the different steps involved in the analysis of RNA-seq data.

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/nar/gks804

Cites

59 of 59 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?

  • Because simulations rely on specific distributions or limited datasets and spike-in datasets have only technical replicates with minimal variation, comparisons have been complemented with real datasets with true biological replicates.

    “As simulations typically rely on specific statistical distributions or on limited experimental datasets and as spike-in datasets represent only technical replicates with minimal variation, comparisons using simulated datasets have been complemented with more practical comparisons in real datasets with true biological replicates [64, 210, 211].”

    From A survey of best practices for RNA-seq data analysis (2016) · cites this paper as [210]

  • DESeq and edgeR rank genes similarly but DESeq is often relatively conservative and edgeR too liberal in controlling FDR.

    “DESeq and edgeR perform similarly in ranking genes but are often relatively conservative or too liberal, respectively, in controlling FDR [63, 209, 210].”

    From A survey of best practices for RNA-seq data analysis (2016) · cites this paper as [210]

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
Nookaew, I., Papini, M., Pornputtapong, N., Scalcinati, G., Fagerberg, L., Uhlén, M., & Nielsen, J.
Affiliations
  • Chalmers University of Technology (SE)
  • Novo Nordisk Foundation (DK)
Corresponding author
Nielsen, Jens
Venue
Nucleic Acids Research
Published
2012-09-08
Volume
40
Issue
20
Pages
10084-10097
ISSN
  • 0305-1048 (ISSN-L)
  • 1362-4962
OpenAlex
W2102921564
Cited by
309
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 40 · 2015: 33 · 2014: 44 · 2013: 30 · 2012: 2
FWCI
14.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nucleic Acids Research (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
  • Chalmers Publication Library (Chalmers University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • Technical University of Denmark, DTU Orbit (Technical University of Denmark, DTU) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Chalmers Research (Chalmers University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Novo Nordisk Fonden (NNF10CC1016517)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • 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
RNA-seq, gene expression profiling, differential gene expression, microarray comparison, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, read mapping, de novo assembly, reference genome, gene ontology annotation, S288c
MeSH terms
Base Sequence, Chromosome Mapping, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Molecular Sequence Data, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Software, Reproducibility of Results, Genome, Fungal, Sequence Analysis, RNA, Oligonucleotide Array Sequence Analysis, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide, Gene Expression Profiling, INDEL Mutation, 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