Cited by 659Genomics and Phylogenetic StudiesSingle-cell and spatial transcriptomicsGene expression and cancer classification

Synthetic spike-in standards for RNA-seq experiments

Open access
Jiang, Lichun, Schlesinger, Felix, Davis, Carrie A., Zhang, Yu, Li, Renhua, Salit, Marc, Gingeras, Thomas R., Oliver, Brian·2011·Genome Research

Abstract

High-throughput sequencing of cDNA (RNA-seq) is a widely deployed transcriptome profiling and annotation technique, but questions about the performance of different protocols and platforms remain. We used a newly developed pool of 96 synthetic RNAs with various lengths, and GC content covering a 2 20 concentration range as spike-in controls to measure sensitivity, accuracy, and biases in RNA-seq experiments as well as to derive standard curves for quantifying the abundance of transcripts. We observed linearity between read density and RNA input over the entire detection range and excellent agreement between replicates, but we observed significantly larger imprecision than expected under pure Poisson sampling errors. We use the control RNAs to directly measure reproducible protocol-dependent biases due to GC content and transcript length as well as stereotypic heterogeneity in coverage across transcripts correlated with position relative to RNA termini and priming sequence bias. These effects lead to biased quantification for short transcripts and individual exons, which is a serious problem for measurements of isoform abundances, but that can partially be corrected using appropriate models of bias. By using the control RNAs, we derive limits for the discovery and detection of rare transcripts in RNA-seq experiments. By using data collected as part of the model organism and human Encyclopedia of DNA Elements projects (ENCODE and modENCODE), we demonstrate that external RNA controls are a useful resource for evaluating sensitivity and accuracy of RNA-seq experiments for transcriptome discovery and quantification. These quality metrics facilitate comparable analysis across different samples, protocols, and platforms.

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.121095.111

Cites

44 of 44 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?

  • Including exogenous reference transcripts (spike-ins) is useful for quality control and for library-size normalization.

    “Including exogenous reference transcripts (‘spike-ins’) is useful both for quality control [1, 197] and for library-size normalization [198].”

    From A survey of best practices for RNA-seq data analysis (2016) · cites this paper as [197]

  • Dropout events manifest as bimodality of gene expression with one mode at zero, and in many cases this bimodality is dominated by false negatives.

    “Across a set of cells, this manifests as bimodality of gene expression (with one mode at zero). While in some cases such bimodality is due to stochastic (‘bursty’) gene expression40 or more stable variation between cell types and states3, in many others it is dominated by false negatives70,85.”

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
Jiang, L., Schlesinger, F., Davis, C. A., Zhang, Y., Li, R., Salit, M., Gingeras, T. R., & Oliver, B.
Affiliations
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (US)
  • National Institute of Standards and Technology (US)
Venue
Genome Research
Published
2011-08-04
Volume
21
Issue
9
Pages
1543-1551
ISSN
1088-9051 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2009458183
Cited by
653
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 50 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 53 · 2021: 45 · 2020: 58 · 2019: 54 · 2018: 51 · 2017: 67 · 2016: 64 · 2015: 38 · 2014: 40 · 2013: 25 · 2012: 15
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Genome Research (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Institutional Repository (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Standards and Technology
  • National Human Genome Research Institute (U54HG004557)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (ZIADK015600)
Topics
  • 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
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene expression and cancer classification
Keywords
RNA-seq, transcriptome quantification, GC content bias, calibration curve, isoform abundance, ENCODE, modENCODE
MeSH terms
Animals, Humans, Quality Control, RNA, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results, Gene Library, Bias, Sequence Analysis, RNA, Gene Expression Profiling, 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