Paper detail

Evaluation of tools for differential gene expression analysis by RNA-seq on a 48 biological replicate experiment

An RNA-seq experiment with 48 biological replicates in each of 2 conditions was performed to determine the number of biological replicates ($n_r$) required, and to identify the most effective statistical analysis tools for identifying differential gene expression (DGE). When $n_r=3$, seven of the nine tools evaluated give true positive rates (TPR) of only 20 to 40 percent. For high fold-change genes ($|log_{2}(FC)|\gt2$) the TPR is $\gt85$ percent. Two tools performed poorly; over- or under-predicting the number of differentially expressed genes. Increasing replication gives a large increase in TPR when considering all DE genes but only a small increase for high fold-change genes. Achieving a TPR $\gt85$% across all fold-changes requires $n_r\gt20$. For future RNA-seq experiments these results suggest $n_r\gt6$, rising to $n_r\gt12$ when identifying DGE irrespective of fold-change is important. For $6 \lt n_r \lt 12$, superior TPR makes edgeR the leading tool tested. For $n_r \ge12$, minimizing false positives is more important and DESeq outperforms the other tools.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access12 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.