↓ Skip to main content

Sensitivity, specificity, and reproducibility of RNA-Seq differential expression calls

Overview of attention for article published in Biology Direct, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users

Readers on

mendeley
71 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Sensitivity, specificity, and reproducibility of RNA-Seq differential expression calls
Published in
Biology Direct, December 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13062-016-0169-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paweł P. Łabaj, David P. Kreil

Abstract

The MAQC/SEQC consortium has recently compiled a key benchmark that can serve for testing the latest developments in analysis tools for microarray and RNA-seq expression profiling. Such objective benchmarks are required for basic and applied research, and can be critical for clinical and regulatory outcomes. Going beyond the first comparisons presented in the original SEQC study, we here present extended benchmarks including effect strengths typical of common experiments. With artefacts removed by factor analysis and additional filters, for genome scale surveys, the reproducibility of differential expression calls typically exceed 80% for all tool combinations examined. This directly reflects the robustness of results and reproducibility across different studies. Similar improvements are observed for the top ranked candidates with the strongest relative expression change, although here some tools clearly perform better than others, with typical reproducibility ranging from 60 to 93%. In our benchmark of alternative tools for RNA-seq data analysis we demonstrated the benefits that can be gained by analysing results in the context of other experiments employing a reference standard sample. This allowed the computational identification and removal of hidden confounders, for instance, by factor analysis. In itself, this already substantially improved the empirical False Discovery Rate (eFDR) without changing the overall landscape of sensitivity. Further filtering of false positives, however, is required to obtain acceptable eFDR levels. Appropriate filters noticeably improved agreement of differentially expressed genes both across sites and between alternative differential expression analysis pipelines. An extended abstract of this research paper was selected for the CAMDA Satellite Meeting to ISMB 2015 by the CAMDA Programme Committee. The full research paper then underwent one round of Open Peer Review under a responsible CAMDA Programme Committee member, Lan Hu, PhD (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Digital Biology Center-Cambridge). Open Peer Review was provided by Charlotte Soneson, PhD (University of Zürich) and Michał Okoniewski, PhD (ETH Zürich). The Reviewer Comments section shows the full reviews and author responses.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 71 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 34%
Researcher 12 17%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Student > Master 5 7%
Student > Postgraduate 4 6%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 12 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 24 34%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 24%
Computer Science 6 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 1%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 14 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 January 2017.
All research outputs
#4,167,162
of 22,914,829 outputs
Outputs from Biology Direct
#169
of 487 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83,090
of 420,738 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biology Direct
#3
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,914,829 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 487 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 420,738 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.