The DOI matches its Crossref record; 40 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Differential expression in RNA-seq: A matter of depth
Open accessAbstract
Next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies are revolutionizing genome research, and in particular, their application to transcriptomics (RNA-seq) is increasingly being used for gene expression profiling as a replacement for microarrays. However, the properties of RNA-seq data have not been yet fully established, and additional research is needed for understanding how these data respond to differential expression analysis. In this work, we set out to gain insights into the characteristics of RNA-seq data analysis by studying an important parameter of this technology: the sequencing depth. We have analyzed how sequencing depth affects the detection of transcripts and their identification as differentially expressed, looking at aspects such as transcript biotype, length, expression level, and fold-change. We have evaluated different algorithms available for the analysis of RNA-seq and proposed a novel approach—NOISeq—that differs from existing methods in that it is data-adaptive and nonparametric. Our results reveal that most existing methodologies suffer from a strong dependency on sequencing depth for their differential expression calls and that this results in a considerable number of false positives that increases as the number of reads grows. In contrast, our proposed method models the noise distribution from the actual data, can therefore better adapt to the size of the data set, and is more effective in controlling the rate of false discoveries. This work discusses the true potential of RNA-seq for studying regulation at low expression ranges, the noise within RNA-seq data, and the issue of replication.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Previous studies demonstrated that inferences about DE are generally more accurate for highly expressed genes19,20.”
From Confronting false discoveries in single-cell differential expression (2021) · cites this paper as [20]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the citing paper
“Experimental results suggest that deep sequencing improves quantification and identification but might also result in the detection of transcriptional noise and off-target transcripts [10].”
From A survey of best practices for RNA-seq data analysis (2016) · cites this paper as [10]
In the citing paper
“Saturation curves can be used to assess the improvement in transcriptome coverage to be expected at a given sequencing depth [10].”
From A survey of best practices for RNA-seq data analysis (2016) · cites this paper as [10]
In the citing paper
“For example, rRNA and small RNAs should not be present in regular polyA longRNA preparations [10, 19].”
From A survey of best practices for RNA-seq data analysis (2016) · cites this paper as [10]
In the citing paper
“In such cases, simpler methods based on the Poisson distribution, such as DEGseq [62], or on empirical distributions (NOISeq [10]) can be an alternative”
From A survey of best practices for RNA-seq data analysis (2016) · cites this paper as [10]
In the citing paper
“Increasing sequencing depth also can improve statistical power for lowly expressed genes [10, 194], and for any given sample there exists a level of sequencing at which power improvement is best achieved by increasing the number of replicates [195].”
From A survey of best practices for RNA-seq data analysis (2016) · cites this paper as [10]
In the citing paper
“NOISeq and NOISeqBIO (the adaptation of NOISeq for biological replication) are more efficient in avoiding false positive calls at the cost of some sensitivity but perform well with different numbers of replicates [10, 20, 212].”
From A survey of best practices for RNA-seq data analysis (2016) · cites this paper as [10]
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
Robinson, M. D., McCarthy, D. J., & Smyth, G. K. (2010) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btp616 · Cited by 41,364
Differential expression analysis for sequence count data
Anders, S., & Huber, W. (2010) · Genome Biology · doi:10.1186/gb-2010-11-10-r106 · Cited by 15,581
Trapnell, C., Williams, B. A., Pertea, G., Mortazavi, A., Kwan, G., van Baren, M. J., Salzberg, S. L., Wold, B. J., & Pachter, L. (2010) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt.1621 · Cited by 15,556
Mapping and quantifying mammalian transcriptomes by RNA-Seq
Mortazavi, A., Williams, B. A., McCue, K., Schaeffer, L., & Wold, B. (2008) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/nmeth.1226 · Cited by 13,696
TopHat: discovering splice junctions with RNA-Seq
Trapnell, C., Pachter, L. S., & Salzberg, S. L. (2009) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btp120 · Cited by 11,682
A map of human genome variation from population-scale sequencing.
The 1000 Genomes Project Consortium (2010) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature09534 · Cited by 7,877
A scaling normalization method for differential expression analysis of RNA-seq data
Robinson, M. D., & Oshlack, A. (2010) · Genome Biology · doi:10.1186/gb-2010-11-3-r25 · Cited by 7,876
Gene ontology analysis for RNA-seq: accounting for selection bias
Young, M. D., Wakefield, M. J., Smyth, G. K., & Oshlack, A. (2010) · Genome Biology · doi:10.1186/gb-2010-11-2-r14 · Cited by 7,107
The relationship between Precision-Recall and ROC curves
Davis, J., & Goadrich, M. (2006) · Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on Machine learning - ICML '06 · doi:10.1145/1143844.1143874 · Cited by 6,559
The Transcriptional Landscape of the Mammalian Genome
Carninci, P., Kasukawa, T., Katayama, S., Gough, J., Frith, M. C., Maeda, N., Oyama, R., Ravasi, T., Lenhard, B., Wells, C. A., et al. (2005) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1112014 · Cited by 3,492
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Haas, B. J., Papanicolaou, A., Yassour, M., Grabherr, M., Blood, P. D., Bowden, J., Couger, M. B., Eccles, D., Li, B., Lieber, M., et al. (2013) · Nature Protocols · doi:10.1038/nprot.2013.084 · Cited by 8,464
Differential analysis of gene regulation at transcript resolution with RNA-seq
Trapnell, C., Hendrickson, D. G., Sauvageau, M., Goff, L., Rinn, J. L., & Pachter, L. (2013) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt.2450 · Cited by 3,492
A survey of best practices for RNA-seq data analysis
Conesa, A., Madrigal, P., Tarazona, S., Gomez-Cabrero, D., Cervera, A., McPherson, A., Szcześniak, M. W., Gaffney, D. J., Elo, L. L., Zhang, X., et al. (2016) · Genome Biology · doi:10.1186/s13059-016-0881-8 · Cited by 2,794
Self-citationSequencing depth and coverage: key considerations in genomic analyses
Sims, D., Sudbery, I. M., Ilott, N. E., Heger, A., & Ponting, C. P. (2014) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg3642 · Cited by 1,488
Fernandes, A. D., Reid, J. N., Macklaim, J. M., McMurrough, T. A., Edgell, D. R., & Gloor, G. B. (2014) · Microbiome · doi:10.1186/2049-2618-2-15 · Cited by 1,329
Metadata
- Authors
- Tarazona, S., García-Alcalde, F., Dopazo, J., Ferrer, A., & Conesa, A.
- Affiliations
- Centro de Investigacion Principe Felipe (ES)
- Universitat Politècnica de València (ES)
- Venue
- Genome Research
- Publisher
- Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
- Published
- 2011-09-08
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 2213-2223
- ISSN
- 1088-9051 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC3227109
- OpenAlex
- W2161106528
- Cited by
- 1,632
- References
- 42
- Citations by year
- 2026: 45 · 2025: 61 · 2024: 90 · 2023: 70 · 2022: 104 · 2021: 171 · 2020: 156 · 2019: 162 · 2018: 151 · 2017: 129 · 2016: 131 · 2015: 128 · 2014: 123 · 2013: 71 · 2012: 37
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Genome Research (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
- RiuNet (Universitat Politècnica de València) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Funders
- Generalitat Valenciana
- Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (BIO2008-04212)
- Instituto de Salud Carlos III (RD06/0020)
- 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, differential gene expression, sequencing depth, false discovery rate, nonparametric statistics, transcript detection, sequencing noise, replication, gene expression profiling
- MeSH terms
- Algorithms, Gene Expression Regulation, Humans, Models, Genetic, Expressed Sequence Tags, 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
