The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Errors in RNA-Seq quantification affect genes of relevance to human disease
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: RNA-Seq has emerged as the standard for measuring gene expression and is an important technique often used in studies of human disease. Gene expression quantification involves comparison of the sequenced reads to a known genomic or transcriptomic reference. The accuracy of that quantification relies on there being enough unique information in the reads to enable bioinformatics tools to accurately assign the reads to the correct gene. RESULTS: We apply 12 common methods to estimate gene expression from RNA-Seq data and show that there are hundreds of genes whose expression is underestimated by one or more of those methods. Many of these genes have been implicated in human disease, and we describe their roles. We go on to propose a two-stage analysis of RNA-Seq data in which multi-mapped or ambiguous reads can instead be uniquely assigned to groups of genes. We apply this method to a recently published mouse cancer study, and demonstrate that we can extract relevant biological signal from data that would otherwise have been discarded. CONCLUSIONS: For hundreds of genes in the human genome, RNA-Seq is unable to measure expression accurately. These genes are enriched for gene families, and many of them have been implicated in human disease. We show that it is possible to use data that may otherwise have been discarded to measure group-level expression, and that such data contains biologically relevant information.
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.
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
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
Patro, R., Mount, S. M., & Kingsford, C. (2014) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt.2862 · Cited by 586
IVT-seq reveals extreme bias in RNA sequencing
Lahens, N. F., Kavakli, I. H., Zhang, R., Hayer, K., Black, M. B., Dueck, H., Pizarro, A., Kim, J., Irizarry, R., Thomas, R. S., et al. (2014) · Genome Biology · doi:10.1186/gb-2014-15-6-r86 · Cited by 158
Bloomer, L. D. S., Nelson, C. P., Eales, J., Denniff, M., Christofidou, P., Debiec, R., Moore, J., Consortium, C., Zukowska-Szczechowska, E., Goodall, A. H., et al. (2013) · Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology · doi:10.1161/atvbaha.113.301608 · Cited by 75 · cited 1×
“Haplogroup I [28] — a common European lineage of the Y chromosome — is known to be associated with an increased risk of coronary artery disease [29].”
Background
Cited by
Differential analyses for RNA-seq: transcript-level estimates improve gene-level inferences
Soneson, C., Love, M. I., & Robinson, M. D. (2015) · F1000Research · doi:10.12688/f1000research.7563.1 · Cited by 3,929
Errors in long-read assemblies can critically affect protein prediction
Watson, M., & Warr, A. (2019) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/s41587-018-0004-z · Cited by 224
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Robert, C., & Watson, M.
- Venue
- Genome Biology
- Published
- 2015-09-03
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 177-177
- ISSN
- 1465-6906 (ISSN-L)
- 1474-760X
- OpenAlex
- W2099879295
- Cited by
- 160
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 6.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Errors in RNA-Seq quantification affect genes of relevance to human disease. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/s13059-015-0734-x
- The paper
- Robert, C., & Watson, M. (2015). Errors in RNA-Seq quantification affect genes of relevance to human disease. Genome Biology. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-015-0734-x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.