Cited by 198Gene expression and cancer classificationGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesSingle-cell and spatial transcriptomics

Efficient experimental design and analysis strategies for the detection of differential expression using RNA-Sequencing

Open access
Robles, José A, Qureshi, Sumaira E, Stephen, Stuart J, Wilson, Susan R, Burden, Conrad J, Taylor, Jennifer M·2012·BMC Genomics

Abstract

Background: RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq) has emerged as a powerful approach for the detection of differential gene expression with both high-throughput and high resolution capabilities possible depending upon the experimental design chosen. Multiplex experimental designs are now readily available, these can be utilised to increase the numbers of samples or replicates profiled at the cost of decreased sequencing depth generated per sample. These strategies impact on the power of the approach to accurately identify differential expression. This study presents a detailed analysis of the power to detect differential expression in a range of scenarios including simulated null and differential expression distributions with varying numbers of biological or technical replicates, sequencing depths and analysis methods. Results: Differential and non-differential expression datasets were simulated using a combination of negative binomial and exponential distributions derived from real RNA-Seq data. These datasets were used to evaluate the performance of three commonly used differential expression analysis algorithms and to quantify the changes in power with respect to true and false positive rates when simulating variations in sequencing depth, biological replication and multiplex experimental design choices. Conclusions: This work quantitatively explores comparisons between contemporary analysis tools and experimental design choices for the detection of differential expression using RNA-Seq. We found that the DESeq algorithm performs more conservatively than edgeR and NBPSeq. With regard to testing of various experimental designs, this work strongly suggests that greater power is gained through the use of biological replicates relative to library (technical) replicates and sequencing depth. Strikingly, sequencing depth could be reduced as low as 15% without substantial impacts on false positive or true positive rates.

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 · 10.1186/1471-2164-13-484

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?

  • 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 [209]

  • DESeq and edgeR rank genes similarly but DESeq is often relatively conservative and edgeR too liberal in controlling FDR.

    “DESeq and edgeR perform similarly in ranking genes but are often relatively conservative or too liberal, respectively, in controlling FDR [63, 209, 210].”

    From A survey of best practices for RNA-seq data analysis (2016) · cites this paper as [209]

  • All differential expression methods require caution when the number of replicates is very small or for very lowly expressed genes.

    “First, specific caution is needed with all the methods when the number of replicate samples is very small or for genes that are expressed at very low levels [55, 64, 209].”

    From A survey of best practices for RNA-seq data analysis (2016) · cites this paper as [209]

  • 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 [209]

  • In most experiments, biological variability is greater than technical variability, so biological replicates are of greater value than technical replicates.

    “In most experiments, biological variability is greater than technical variability, so biological replicates are of greater value than technical replicates174,175,219.”

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
Robles, J. A., Qureshi, S. E., Stephen, S. J., Wilson, S. R., Burden, C. J., & Taylor, J. M.
Affiliations
  • Australian National University (AU)
  • Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (AU)
Corresponding author
Taylor, Jennifer M
Venue
BMC Genomics
Published
2012-09-17
Volume
13
Issue
1
Pages
484-484
ISSN
1471-2164 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2068614693
Cited by
198
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 36 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 1
FWCI
9.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • BMC Genomics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Australian Research Council (DP1094699)
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 gene expression, RNA-seq, experimental design, sequencing depth, biological replicates, technical replicates, multiplexed sequencing, statistical power, false positive rate, diagnostic sensitivity, DESeq, edgeR, negative binomial distribution
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Statistics as Topic, Sequence Analysis, RNA, 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