Cited by 286Gene expression and cancer classificationGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesSingle-cell and spatial transcriptomics

A comparison of statistical methods for detecting differentially expressed genes from RNA‐seq data

Kvam, Vanessa M., Liu, Peng, Si, Yaqing·2012·American Journal of Botany

Abstract

RNA‐Seq technologies are quickly revolutionizing genomic studies, and statistical methods for RNA‐seq data are under continuous development. Timely review and comparison of the most recently proposed statistical methods will provide a useful guide for choosing among them for data analysis. Particular interest surrounds the ability to detect differential expression (DE) in genes. Here we compare four recently proposed statistical methods, edgeR, DESeq, baySeq, and a method with a two‐stage Poisson model (TSPM), through a variety of simulations that were based on different distribution models or real data. We compared the ability of these methods to detect DE genes in terms of the significance ranking of genes and false discovery rate control. All methods compared are implemented in freely available software. We also discuss the availability and functions of the currently available versions of these software.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3732/ajb.1100340

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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 [208]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kvam, V. M., Liu, P., & Si, Y.
Affiliations
Iowa State University (US)
Corresponding author
Liu, Peng
Venue
American Journal of Botany
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-02
Volume
99
Issue
2
Pages
248-256
ISSN
  • 0002-9122 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-2197
OpenAlex
W2114405789
Cited by
281
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 36 · 2014: 40 · 2013: 32 · 2012: 16
FWCI
15.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Botany (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (0701736)
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, edgeR, DESeq, false discovery rate, comparison of statistical methods
MeSH terms
Base Sequence, Computer Simulation, Models, Genetic, ROC Curve, Software, Reproducibility of Results, Poisson Distribution, Genes, Plant, Sequence Analysis, RNA, Gene Expression Regulation, Plant, RNA, Plant, Computational Biology, Databases, Nucleic Acid

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