↓ Skip to main content

Gene length corrected trimmed mean of M-values (GeTMM) processing of RNA-seq data performs similarly in intersample analyses while improving intrasample comparisons

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
patent
2 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
116 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
171 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
Gene length corrected trimmed mean of M-values (GeTMM) processing of RNA-seq data performs similarly in intersample analyses while improving intrasample comparisons
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12859-018-2246-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marcel Smid, Robert R. J. Coebergh van den Braak, Harmen J. G. van de Werken, Job van Riet, Anne van Galen, Vanja de Weerd, Michelle van der Vlugt-Daane, Sandra I. Bril, Zarina S. Lalmahomed, Wigard P. Kloosterman, Saskia M. Wilting, John A. Foekens, Jan N. M. IJzermans, on behalf of the MATCH study group, John W. M. Martens, Anieta M. Sieuwerts

Abstract

Current normalization methods for RNA-sequencing data allow either for intersample comparison to identify differentially expressed (DE) genes or for intrasample comparison for the discovery and validation of gene signatures. Most studies on optimization of normalization methods typically use simulated data to validate methodologies. We describe a new method, GeTMM, which allows for both inter- and intrasample analyses with the same normalized data set. We used actual (i.e. not simulated) RNA-seq data from 263 colon cancers (no biological replicates) and used the same read count data to compare GeTMM with the most commonly used normalization methods (i.e. TMM (used by edgeR), RLE (used by DESeq2) and TPM) with respect to distributions, effect of RNA quality, subtype-classification, recurrence score, recall of DE genes and correlation to RT-qPCR data. We observed a clear benefit for GeTMM and TPM with regard to intrasample comparison while GeTMM performed similar to TMM and RLE normalized data in intersample comparisons. Regarding DE genes, recall was found comparable among the normalization methods, while GeTMM showed the lowest number of false-positive DE genes. Remarkably, we observed limited detrimental effects in samples with low RNA quality. We show that GeTMM outperforms established methods with regard to intrasample comparison while performing equivalent with regard to intersample normalization using the same normalized data. These combined properties enhance the general usefulness of RNA-seq but also the comparability to the many array-based gene expression data in the public domain.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 171 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 171 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 37 22%
Researcher 30 18%
Student > Master 27 16%
Student > Bachelor 15 9%
Other 5 3%
Other 10 6%
Unknown 47 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 52 30%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 29 17%
Immunology and Microbiology 11 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 4%
Computer Science 6 4%
Other 16 9%
Unknown 50 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 25 January 2024.
All research outputs
#3,780,929
of 25,366,663 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#1,314
of 7,677 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,866
of 336,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#24
of 98 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,366,663 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,677 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 well, scoring higher than 82% 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 336,072 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 98 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.