Cited by 867Gene expression and cancer classificationGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesSingle-cell and spatial transcriptomics

GC-Content Normalization for RNA-Seq Data

Open access
Risso, Davide, Schwartz, Katja, Sherlock, Gavin, Dudoit, Sandrine·2011·BMC Bioinformatics

Abstract

Background: Transcriptome sequencing (RNA-Seq) has become the assay of choice for high-throughput studies of gene expression. However, as is the case with microarrays, major technology-related artifacts and biases affect the resulting expression measures. Normalization is therefore essential to ensure accurate inference of expression levels and subsequent analyses thereof. Results: We focus on biases related to GC-content and demonstrate the existence of strong sample-specific GC-content effects on RNA-Seq read counts, which can substantially bias differential expression analysis. We propose three simple within-lane gene-level GC-content normalization approaches and assess their performance on two different RNA-Seq datasets, involving different species and experimental designs. Our methods are compared to state-of-the-art normalization procedures in terms of bias and mean squared error for expression fold-change estimation and in terms of Type I error and p-value distributions for tests of differential expression. The exploratory data analysis and normalization methods proposed in this article are implemented in the open-source Bioconductor R package EDASeq. Conclusions: Our within-lane normalization procedures, followed by between-lane normalization, reduce GC-content bias and lead to more accurate estimates of expression fold-changes and tests of differential expression. Such results are crucial for the biological interpretation of RNA-Seq experiments, where downstream analyses can be sensitive to the supplied lists of genes.

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 · 10.1186/1471-2105-12-480

Cites

37 of 37 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?

  • Batch effects can be minimized by appropriate experimental design or removed by batch-correction methods such as COMBAT or ARSyN.

    “These effects can be minimized by appropriate experimental design [51] or, alternatively, removed by batch-correction methods such as COMBAT [52] or ARSyN [20, 53].”

    From A survey of best practices for RNA-seq data analysis (2016) · cites this paper as [20]

  • Filtering out lowly expressed genes before differential expression analysis reduces the severity of multiple testing correction and may improve power.

    “Filtering out genes that are expressed at low levels prior to differential expression analysis reduces the severity of the correction and may improve the power of detection [20].”

    From A survey of best practices for RNA-seq data analysis (2016) · cites this paper as [20]

  • NOISeq and NOISeqBIO avoid false positives more efficiently at some cost to sensitivity and perform well with different numbers of replicates.

    “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 [20]

  • SAMseq controls FDR well but has acceptable sensitivity only when the number of replicates is relatively high, at least 10.

    “SAMseq performs well in terms of FDR but presents an acceptable sensitivity when the number of replicates is relatively high, at least 10 [20, 55, 209].”

    From A survey of best practices for RNA-seq data analysis (2016) · cites this paper as [20]

  • In large-scale RNA-seq studies, commonly used normalization methods (cqn, EDASeq, RUV2, sva, PEER) differ in how well they remove systematic biases, depending on sample complexity and initial data quality.

    “commonly used methods fornormalization (cqn, EDASeq, RUV2, sva, PEER) varied in their ability to remove these systematic biases, depending on sample complexity and initial data quality.”

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
Risso, D., Schwartz, K., Sherlock, G., & Dudoit, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Padua (IT)
  • Stanford University (US)
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
Corresponding author
Dudoit, Sandrine
Venue
BMC Bioinformatics
Published
2011-12
Volume
12
Issue
1
Pages
480-480
ISSN
1471-2105 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2168342464
Cited by
867
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 29 · 2025: 58 · 2024: 83 · 2023: 80 · 2022: 89 · 2021: 97 · 2020: 74 · 2019: 55 · 2018: 60 · 2017: 49 · 2016: 59 · 2015: 38 · 2014: 48 · 2013: 30 · 2012: 18
FWCI
12.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • BMC Bioinformatics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Collection of Biostatistics Research Archive (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • Padua Research Archive (University of Padova) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Università degli Studi di Padova
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Human Genome Research Institute (R01 HG03468, R01HG003468)
  • National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (R01AI077737)
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, gene expression bias, transcriptome sequencing
MeSH terms
Base Composition, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Sequence Analysis, RNA, Gene Expression Profiling, Transcriptome

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