Cited by 30Gene expression and cancer classificationGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesGenetic Associations and Epidemiology

RNA-Seq optimization with eQTL gold standards

Open access
Ellis, Shannon E, Gupta, Simone, Ashar, Foram N, Bader, Joel S, West, Andrew B, Arking, Dan E·2013·BMC Genomics

Abstract

Background: RNA-Sequencing (RNA-Seq) experiments have been optimized for library preparation, mapping, and gene expression estimation. These methods, however, have revealed weaknesses in the next stages of analysis of differential expression, with results sensitive to systematic sample stratification or, in more extreme cases, to outliers. Further, a method to assess normalization and adjustment measures imposed on the data is lacking. Results: To address these issues, we utilize previously published eQTLs as a novel gold standard at the center of a framework that integrates DNA genotypes and RNA-Seq data to optimize analysis and aid in the understanding of genetic variation and gene expression. After detecting sample contamination and sequencing outliers in RNA-Seq data, a set of previously published brain eQTLs was used to determine if sample outlier removal was appropriate. Improved replication of known eQTLs supported removal of these samples in downstream analyses. eQTL replication was further employed to assess normalization methods, covariate inclusion, and gene annotation. This method was validated in an independent RNA-Seq blood data set from the GTEx project and a tissue-appropriate set of eQTLs. eQTL replication in both data sets highlights the necessity of accounting for unknown covariates in RNA-Seq data analysis. Conclusion: As each RNA-Seq experiment is unique with its own experiment-specific limitations, we offer an easily-implementable method that uses the replication of known eQTLs to guide each step in one’s data analysis pipeline. In the two data sets presented herein, we highlight not only the necessity of careful outlier detection but also the need to account for unknown covariates in RNA-Seq experiments.

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 · 10.1186/1471-2164-14-892

Cites

35 of 35 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?

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
Ellis, S. E., Gupta, S., Ashar, F. N., Bader, J. S., West, A. B., & Arking, D. E.
Affiliations
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • University of Alabama (US)
Corresponding author
Arking, Dan E
Venue
BMC Genomics
Published
2013-12
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
892-892
ISSN
1471-2164 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2025063820
Cited by
30
References
35
Citations by year
2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2
FWCI
1.19
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)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Simons Foundation (137603)
  • Van Andel Research Institute (10ST1035)
  • University of Miami (MH090936, MH090951, MH090948, DA006227, MH090941)
  • Harvard University (MH090948)
  • University of Chicago (MH090951)
  • Johns Hopkins University
  • Broad Institute (HHSN268201000029C)
  • Simons Foundation Autism Research Initiative
  • Université de Genève (MH090941)
  • National Institutes of Health (10XS170, #HHSN261200800001E, HHSN268201000029C, 10XS171, 10ST1035)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (HHSN268201000029C, HHSN261200800001E)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R24MH068855, HHSN261200800001E, MH-090941, R01MH090948, MH090948, R01MH090941, MH090951, MH09037, R01MH090951)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (DA006227, R01DA006227)
  • National Human Genome Research Institute (HHSN261200800001E)
  • NIH Office of the Director (HHSN261200800001E)
  • National Cancer Institute (HHSN261200800001E), HHSN268201000029C)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
  • Common Fund
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 › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
Keywords
RNA-seq, expression quantitative trait loci, sample outlier detection, sample contamination, normalization methods, covariate adjustment, genome annotation, differential gene expression, gene expression estimation
MeSH terms
Blood, Brain, Chromosome Mapping, Humans, Reference Standards, Reproducibility of Results, Sequence Analysis, RNA, Quantitative Trait Loci, Genotyping Techniques

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