Cited by 2,771Genomics and Phylogenetic StudiesGene expression and cancer classificationSingle-cell and spatial transcriptomics

RNA-seq: An assessment of technical reproducibility and comparison with gene expression arrays

Open access
Marioni, John C., Mason, Christopher E., Mane, Shrikant M., Stephens, Matthew, Gilad, Yoav·2008·Genome Research

Abstract

Ultra-high-throughput sequencing is emerging as an attractive alternative to microarrays for genotyping, analysis of methylation patterns, and identification of transcription factor binding sites. Here, we describe an application of the Illumina sequencing (formerly Solexa sequencing) platform to study mRNA expression levels. Our goals were to estimate technical variance associated with Illumina sequencing in this context and to compare its ability to identify differentially expressed genes with existing array technologies. To do so, we estimated gene expression differences between liver and kidney RNA samples using multiple sequencing replicates, and compared the sequencing data to results obtained from Affymetrix arrays using the same RNA samples. We find that the Illumina sequencing data are highly replicable, with relatively little technical variation, and thus, for many purposes, it may suffice to sequence each mRNA sample only once (i.e., using one lane). The information in a single lane of Illumina sequencing data appears comparable to that in a single array in enabling identification of differentially expressed genes, while allowing for additional analyses such as detection of low-expressed genes, alternative splice variants, and novel transcripts. Based on our observations, we propose an empirical protocol and a statistical framework for the analysis of gene expression using ultra-high-throughput sequencing technology.

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 · 10.1101/gr.079558.108

Cites

26 of 26 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?

  • Transcript abundance is directly proportional to the number of sequencing reads that map to a specific transcript, resulting in lower false-negative and false-positive discovery rates and a greater linear range.

    “Transcript abundance is directly proportional to the number of sequencing reads that map to a specific transcript, resulting in lower falsenegative and false-positive discovery rates in addition to a greater linear range (Bainbridge et al., 2006;Cloonan et al., 2008;Marioni et al., 2008;Mortazavi et al., 2008;Nagalakshmi et al., 2008;Sultan et al., 2008;Wilhelm et al., 2008;Trapnell et al., 2010;W”

    From An RNA-Sequencing Transcriptome and Splicing Database of Glia, Neurons, and Vascular Cells of the Cerebral Cortex (2014) · cites this paper as Marioni et al., 2008

    The Illumina sequencing data processing section says read counts are expected to be proportional to transcript length times mRNA expression level, under idealized assumptions—not simply to abundance alone. The Abstract reports 30% more differentially expressed genes than the array analysis at the same false discovery rate, but the copy does not establish lower false-positive rates or a greater linear range. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The choice of RNA-seq pipeline had an effect, with some tools requiring up to twice as many aligned fragments.

    “The choice of RNA-seq pipeline also had an effect, with some tools requiring up to twice as many aligned fragments ( cf. TopHat2+Cufflinks, 23 Supplementary Figure 35).”

    From A comprehensive assessment of RNA-seq accuracy, reproducibility and information content by the Sequencing Quality Control Consortium (2014) · cites this paper as [23]

    The Illumina sequencing data processing section describes alignment with ELAND, while the RNA-seq study design section compares numbers of sequencing lanes. Neither reports a comparison of RNA-seq pipelines or says that any tool required twice as many aligned fragments. Searches for TopHat2, Cufflinks, and pipeline-dependent fragment requirements found no supporting passage in our copy; page numbers were unavailable. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • High within-study reproducibility is likely to reflect reproducible biases associated with use of a single measurement technique in addition to reproducible features of the biological sample.

    “These data hint, coupled with similar observations in other biological systems [44], that high within-study reproducibility is likely to reflect reproducible biases associated with use of a single measurement technique in addition to reproducible features of the biological sample.”

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
Marioni, J. C., Mason, C. E., Mane, S. M., Stephens, M., & Gilad, Y.
Affiliations
  • University of Chicago (US)
  • Yale University (US)
Venue
Genome Research
Published
2008-06-11
Volume
18
Issue
9
Pages
1509-1517
ISSN
1088-9051 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2121211805
Cited by
2,771
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 29 · 2025: 45 · 2024: 67 · 2023: 68 · 2022: 96 · 2021: 117 · 2020: 129 · 2019: 130 · 2018: 163 · 2017: 199 · 2016: 208 · 2015: 242 · 2014: 282 · 2013: 273 · 2012: 266
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Genome Research (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
  • Yale University
  • University of Chicago
  • National Institutes of Health (HG002585)
  • National Human Genome Research Institute (HG002585, R01HG002585)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (GM077959, R01GM077959)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (U24NS051869)
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, technical reproducibility, gene expression arrays, Affymetrix microarrays, differentially expressed genes, Illumina sequencing, low-expressed genes, alternative splicing, novel transcripts
MeSH terms
Humans, Male, Models, Biological, RNA, Messenger, Reproducibility of Results, Likelihood Functions, Sequence Analysis, RNA, Oligonucleotide Array Sequence Analysis, Gene Expression Profiling

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