Cited by 266Gene expression and cancer classificationGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesSingle-cell and spatial transcriptomics

Power analysis and sample size estimation for RNA-Seq differential expression

Open access
Ching, Travers, Huang, Sijia, Garmire, Lana X.·2014·RNA

Abstract

It is crucial for researchers to optimize RNA-seq experimental designs for differential expression detection. Currently, the field lacks general methods to estimate power and sample size for RNA-Seq in complex experimental designs, under the assumption of the negative binomial distribution. We simulate RNA-Seq count data based on parameters estimated from six widely different public data sets (including cell line comparison, tissue comparison, and cancer data sets) and calculate the statistical power in paired and unpaired sample experiments. We comprehensively compare five differential expression analysis packages (DESeq, edgeR, DESeq2, sSeq, and EBSeq) and evaluate their performance by power, receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves, and other metrics including areas under the curve (AUC), Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC), and F -measures. DESeq2 and edgeR tend to give the best performance in general. Increasing sample size or sequencing depth increases power; however, increasing sample size is more potent than sequencing depth to increase power, especially when the sequencing depth reaches 20 million reads. Long intergenic noncoding RNAs (lincRNA) yields lower power relative to the protein coding mRNAs, given their lower expression level in the same RNA-Seq experiment. On the other hand, paired-sample RNA-Seq significantly enhances the statistical power, confirming the importance of considering the multifactor experimental design. Finally, a local optimal power is achievable for a given budget constraint, and the dominant contributing factor is sample size rather than the sequencing depth. In conclusion, we provide a power analysis tool ( http://www2.hawaii.edu/~lgarmire/RNASeqPowerCalculator.htm ) that captures the dispersion in the data and can serve as a practical reference under the budget constraint of 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 · 10.1261/rna.046011.114

Cites

47 of 47 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?

  • Many guidelines for DGE and network analysis are based on theoretical models and empirical assessments, but most use data lacking the spatial, temporal, or disease-relevant complexities of CNS or post-mortem tissue.

    “For DGE and network analysis, there are many studies with guidelines that are based on theoretical models and empirical assessments40,173–176, but most studies use data from experiments that do not have the spatial, temporal or disease-relevant complexities that occur in studies of the CNS or post-mortem tissue.”

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
Ching, T., Huang, S., & Garmire, L. X.
Affiliations
University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa (US)
Corresponding author
Garmire, Lana X.
Venue
RNA
Published
2014-09-22
Volume
20
Issue
11
Pages
1684-1696
ISSN
  • 1355-8382 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-9001
OpenAlex
W2157710407
Cited by
263
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 3 · 2012: 1
FWCI
7.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • RNA (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of General Medical Sciences (P20 COBRE GM103457)
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, statistical power, sample size determination, differential gene expression, negative binomial distribution, DESeq2, edgeR, sequencing depth, long intergenic non-coding RNA
MeSH terms
Animals, Computer Simulation, Humans, Regression Analysis, Research Design, RNA, Messenger, Software, Reproducibility of Results, Sequence Analysis, RNA, Sample Size, Gene Expression Profiling, Databases, Genetic, Mice, High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing

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