↓ Skip to main content

Power analysis for RNA-Seq differential expression studies

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
53 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
202 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
Power analysis for RNA-Seq differential expression studies
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12859-017-1648-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lianbo Yu, Soledad Fernandez, Guy Brock

Abstract

Sample size calculation and power estimation are essential components of experimental designs in biomedical research. It is very challenging to estimate power for RNA-Seq differential expression under complex experimental designs. Moreover, the dependency among genes should be taken into account in order to obtain accurate results. In this paper, we propose a simulation based procedure for power estimation using the negative binomial distribution and assuming a generalized linear model (at the gene level) that considers the dependence between gene expression level and its variance (dispersion) and also allows equal or unequal dispersion across conditions. We compared the performance of both Wald test and likelihood ratio test under different scenarios. The null distribution of the test statistics was simulated for the desired false positive control to avoid excess false positives with the usage of an asymptotic chi-square distribution. We applied this method to the TCGA breast cancer data set. We provide a framework for power estimation of RNA-Seq data. The proposed procedure is able to properly control the false positive error rate at the nominal level.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 53 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 202 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Unknown 198 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 47 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 38 19%
Student > Master 23 11%
Student > Bachelor 11 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 5%
Other 36 18%
Unknown 37 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 68 34%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 57 28%
Computer Science 9 4%
Neuroscience 7 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 6 3%
Other 20 10%
Unknown 35 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 04 May 2021.
All research outputs
#1,052,642
of 24,458,924 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#98
of 7,535 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,532
of 315,189 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#4
of 115 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,458,924 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,535 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 315,189 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 115 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.