Cited by 3,929Genomics and Phylogenetic StudiesGene expression and cancer classificationSingle-cell and spatial transcriptomics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Differential analyses for RNA-seq: transcript-level estimates improve gene-level inferences

Open access

Abstract

High-throughput sequencing of cDNA (RNA-seq) is used extensively to characterize the transcriptome of cells. Many transcriptomic studies aim at comparing either abundance levels or the transcriptome composition between given conditions, and as a first step, the sequencing reads must be used as the basis for abundance quantification of transcriptomic features of interest, such as genes or transcripts. Several different quantification approaches have been proposed, ranging from simple counting of reads that overlap given genomic regions to more complex estimation of underlying transcript abundances. In this paper, we show that gene-level abundance estimates and statistical inference offer advantages over transcript-level analyses, in terms of performance and interpretability. We also illustrate that while the presence of differential isoform usage can lead to inflated false discovery rates in differential expression analyses on simple count matrices and transcript-level abundance estimates improve the performance in simulated data, the difference is relatively minor in several real data sets. Finally, we provide an R package ( tximport ) to help users integrate transcript-level abundance estimates from common quantification pipelines into count-based statistical inference engines.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.12688/f1000research.7563.1

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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?

  • PSAP variants are associated with lysosomal storage disorders and Parkinson's Disease.

    “Given the screen phenotypes of PSAP, which were unexpected based on its known functions, and the association of PSAP variants not only with lysosomal storage disorders60–62 but also Parkinson’s Disease63, we decided to further investigate the underlying mechanisms of PSAP in neuronal redox regulation.”

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. C Soneson, 2015, Data set 1 in: Differential analyses for RNA-seq: transcript-level estimates improve gene-level inferences., F1000Research., 10.5256/f1000research.7563.d109328 · DOI
  2. C Soneson, 2015, Data set 2 in: Differential analyses for RNA-seq: transcript-level estimates improve gene-level inferences., F1000Research., 10.5256/f1000research.7563.d109329 · DOI
  3. C Soneson, 2015, Data set 3 in: Differential analyses for RNA-seq: transcript-level estimates improve gene-level inferences., F1000Research., 10.5256/f1000research.7563.d109330 · DOI
  4. C Soneson, 2015, Data set 4 in: Differential analyses for RNA-seq: transcript-level estimates improve gene-level inferences., F1000Research., 10.5256/f1000research.7563.d109331 · DOI
  5. C Soneson, 2015, Data set 5 in: Differential analyses for RNA-seq: transcript-level estimates improve gene-level inferences., F1000Research., 10.5256/f1000research.7563.d109332 · DOI
  6. C Soneson, 2015, Data set 6 in: Differential analyses for RNA-seq: transcript-level estimates improve gene-level inferences., F1000Research., 10.5256/f1000research.7563.d109333 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Soneson, C., Love, M. I., & Robinson, M. D.
Affiliations
  • SIB Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics (CH)
  • Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
  • Soneson, Charlotte
  • Love, Michael I.
  • Robinson, Mark D.
Venue
F1000Research
Published
2015-12-30
Volume
4
Pages
1521
ISSN
2046-1402 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2197124664
Cited by
3,929
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 349 · 2025: 478 · 2024: 594 · 2023: 520 · 2022: 552 · 2021: 574 · 2020: 365 · 2019: 288 · 2018: 147 · 2017: 47 · 2016: 15
FWCI
30.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • F1000Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
Funders
  • European Commission (305626)
  • Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (143883)
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Cancer Institute (T32CA009337)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene expression and cancer classification
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Single-cell and spatial transcriptomics
Keywords
RNA-seq, differential expression analysis, isoform usage, false discovery rate

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