↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of methods for differential expression analysis on multi-group RNA-seq count data

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, November 2015
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 (75th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
205 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
Evaluation of methods for differential expression analysis on multi-group RNA-seq count data
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12859-015-0794-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Min Tang, Jianqiang Sun, Kentaro Shimizu, Koji Kadota

Abstract

RNA-seq is a powerful tool for measuring transcriptomes, especially for identifying differentially expressed genes or transcripts (DEGs) between sample groups. A number of methods have been developed for this task, and several evaluation studies have also been reported. However, those evaluations so far have been restricted to two-group comparisons. Accumulations of comparative studies for multi-group data are also desired. We compare 12 pipelines available in nine R packages for detecting differential expressions (DE) from multi-group RNA-seq count data, focusing on three-group data with or without replicates. We evaluate those pipelines on the basis of both simulation data and real count data. As a result, the pipelines in the TCC package performed comparably to or better than other pipelines under various simulation scenarios. TCC implements a multi-step normalization strategy (called DEGES) that internally uses functions provided by other representative packages (edgeR, DESeq2, and so on). We found considerably different numbers of identified DEGs (18.5 ~ 45.7 % of all genes) among the pipelines for the same real dataset but similar distributions of the classified expression patterns. We also found that DE results can roughly be estimated by the hierarchical dendrogram of sample clustering for the raw count data. We confirmed the DEGES-based pipelines implemented in TCC performed well in a three-group comparison as well as a two-group comparison. We recommend using the DEGES-based pipeline that internally uses edgeR (here called the EEE-E pipeline) for count data with replicates (especially for small sample sizes). For data without replicates, the DEGES-based pipeline with DESeq2 (called SSS-S) can be recommended.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 205 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 200 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 45 22%
Researcher 44 21%
Student > Master 30 15%
Student > Bachelor 21 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 4%
Other 28 14%
Unknown 28 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 74 36%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 54 26%
Computer Science 13 6%
Mathematics 7 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 3%
Other 16 8%
Unknown 34 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 10 May 2016.
All research outputs
#5,423,901
of 22,832,057 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#1,927
of 7,288 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,350
of 285,322 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#33
of 153 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,832,057 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,288 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 285,322 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 153 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.