↓ Skip to main content

Finite-size effects in transcript sequencing count distribution: its power-law correction necessarily precedes downstream normalization and comparative analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Biology Direct, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
19 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
Finite-size effects in transcript sequencing count distribution: its power-law correction necessarily precedes downstream normalization and comparative analysis
Published in
Biology Direct, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13062-018-0204-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wing-Cheong Wong, Hong-kiat Ng, Erwin Tantoso, Richie Soong, Frank Eisenhaber

Abstract

Though earlier works on modelling transcript abundance from vertebrates to lower eukaroytes have specifically singled out the Zip's law, the observed distributions often deviate from a single power-law slope. In hindsight, while power-laws of critical phenomena are derived asymptotically under the conditions of infinite observations, real world observations are finite where the finite-size effects will set in to force a power-law distribution into an exponential decay and consequently, manifests as a curvature (i.e., varying exponent values) in a log-log plot. If transcript abundance is truly power-law distributed, the varying exponent signifies changing mathematical moments (e.g., mean, variance) and creates heteroskedasticity which compromises statistical rigor in analysis. The impact of this deviation from the asymptotic power-law on sequencing count data has never truly been examined and quantified. The anecdotal description of transcript abundance being almost Zipf's law-like distributed can be conceptualized as the imperfect mathematical rendition of the Pareto power-law distribution when subjected to the finite-size effects in the real world; This is regardless of the advancement in sequencing technology since sampling is finite in practice. Our conceptualization agrees well with our empirical analysis of two modern day NGS (Next-generation sequencing) datasets: an in-house generated dilution miRNA study of two gastric cancer cell lines (NUGC3 and AGS) and a publicly available spike-in miRNA data; Firstly, the finite-size effects causes the deviations of sequencing count data from Zipf's law and issues of reproducibility in sequencing experiments. Secondly, it manifests as heteroskedasticity among experimental replicates to bring about statistical woes. Surprisingly, a straightforward power-law correction that restores the distribution distortion to a single exponent value can dramatically reduce data heteroskedasticity to invoke an instant increase in signal-to-noise ratio by 50% and the statistical/detection sensitivity by as high as 30% regardless of the downstream mapping and normalization methods. Most importantly, the power-law correction improves concordance in significant calls among different normalization methods of a data series averagely by 22%. When presented with a higher sequence depth (4 times difference), the improvement in concordance is asymmetrical (32% for the higher sequencing depth instance versus 13% for the lower instance) and demonstrates that the simple power-law correction can increase significant detection with higher sequencing depths. Finally, the correction dramatically enhances the statistical conclusions and eludes the metastasis potential of the NUGC3 cell line against AGS of our dilution analysis. The finite-size effects due to undersampling generally plagues transcript count data with reproducibility issues but can be minimized through a simple power-law correction of the count distribution. This distribution correction has direct implication on the biological interpretation of the study and the rigor of the scientific findings. This article was reviewed by Oliviero Carugo, Thomas Dandekar and Sandor Pongor.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 21%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 21%
Researcher 4 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 16%
Other 1 5%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 1 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 26%
Computer Science 3 16%
Sports and Recreations 3 16%
Engineering 2 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Other 4 21%
Unknown 1 5%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 27 December 2023.
All research outputs
#17,223,104
of 25,292,646 outputs
Outputs from Biology Direct
#385
of 534 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#287,456
of 457,726 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biology Direct
#3
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,292,646 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 534 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 457,726 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.