Cited by 892Gene expression and cancer classificationGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesSingle-cell and spatial transcriptomics

A comparison of methods for differential expression analysis of RNA-seq data

Open access
Soneson, Charlotte, Delorenzi, Mauro·2013·BMC Bioinformatics

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Finding genes that are differentially expressed between conditions is an integral part of understanding the molecular basis of phenotypic variation. In the past decades, DNA microarrays have been used extensively to quantify the abundance of mRNA corresponding to different genes, and more recently high-throughput sequencing of cDNA (RNA-seq) has emerged as a powerful competitor. As the cost of sequencing decreases, it is conceivable that the use of RNA-seq for differential expression analysis will increase rapidly. To exploit the possibilities and address the challenges posed by this relatively new type of data, a number of software packages have been developed especially for differential expression analysis of RNA-seq data. RESULTS: We conducted an extensive comparison of eleven methods for differential expression analysis of RNA-seq data. All methods are freely available within the R framework and take as input a matrix of counts, i.e. the number of reads mapping to each genomic feature of interest in each of a number of samples. We evaluate the methods based on both simulated data and real RNA-seq data. CONCLUSIONS: Very small sample sizes, which are still common in RNA-seq experiments, impose problems for all evaluated methods and any results obtained under such conditions should be interpreted with caution. For larger sample sizes, the methods combining a variance-stabilizing transformation with the 'limma' method for differential expression analysis perform well under many different conditions, as does the nonparametric SAMseq method.

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 · 10.1186/1471-2105-14-91

Cites

34 of 34 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?

  • Methods for transforming normalized counts of RNA-seq reads while learning the variance structure of the data have been shown to perform well in comparison to discrete distribution approaches.

    “Methods for transforming normalized counts of RNA-seq reads while learning the variance structure of the data have been shown to perform well in comparison to the discrete distribution approaches described above [55, 56].”

    From A survey of best practices for RNA-seq data analysis (2016) · cites this paper as [56]

  • Recent independent comparison studies have demonstrated that the choice of the method (or even the version of a software package) can markedly affect the outcome of the analysis and that no single method is likely to perform favorably for all datasets.

    “Recent independent comparison studies have demonstrated that the choice of the method (or even the version of a software package) can markedly affect the outcome of the analysis and that no single method is likely to perform favorably for all datasets [56, 63, 64]”

    From A survey of best practices for RNA-seq data analysis (2016) · cites this paper as [56]

  • Most comparison studies of differential expression methods have used simulated datasets or spike-in samples with known quantities.

    “Most comparison studies have focused on simulated datasets [56, 208, 209] or on samples to which exogenous RNA (‘spike-in’) has been added in known quantities [63, 196].”

    From A survey of best practices for RNA-seq data analysis (2016) · cites this paper as [56]

  • Cuffdiff and Cuffdiff2 performed surprisingly poorly in the comparisons.

    “Cuffdiff and Cuffdiff2 have performed surprisingly poorly in the comparisons [56, 63].”

    From A survey of best practices for RNA-seq data analysis (2016) · cites this paper as [56]

  • limma performs well under many circumstances and is the fastest to run among the tools.

    “Among the tools, limma has been shown to perform well under many circumstances and it is also the fastest to run [56, 63, 64].”

    From A survey of best practices for RNA-seq data analysis (2016) · cites this paper as [56]

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Bancroft T Nettleton D Estimation of false discovery rate using permutation p-values with different discrete null distributions 2009 Technical Report: Iowa State University [ http://www.stat.iastate.edu/preprint/articles/2009-05.pdf]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Soneson, C., & Delorenzi, M.
Affiliations
SIB Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics (CH)
Corresponding author
Soneson, Charlotte
Venue
BMC Bioinformatics
Published
2013-03-09
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
91-91
ISSN
1471-2105 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2074414424
Cited by
887
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 46 · 2023: 45 · 2022: 50 · 2021: 84 · 2020: 66 · 2019: 82 · 2018: 72 · 2017: 83 · 2016: 91 · 2015: 97 · 2014: 101 · 2013: 24
FWCI
46.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Bioinformatics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • IRIS (submittedVersion)
  • SERVAL (Université de Lausanne) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
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
differential expression analysis, RNA-seq, method comparison, small sample size, variance stabilizing transformation, limma, count data, R package, simulated data
MeSH terms
Animals, Mice, Inbred C57BL, Mice, Inbred DBA, RNA, Messenger, Software, Genome, Sequence Analysis, RNA, DNA, Complementary, Gene Expression Profiling, Genomics, Mice

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