Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31992223›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2020

Choice of library size normalization and statistical methods for differential gene expression analysis in balanced two-group comparisons for RNA-seq studies.

Xiaohong Li, Nigel G F Cooper, Timothy E O'Toole, Eric C Rouchka

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Frontiers in plant science · 2026
    Article
  7. STAT3 SH2 Domain Aspartic Acid 661 Mutations Activate Immune Gene Programs.Journal of cellular and molecular medicine · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Dynamic regulation ofFrontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Xiaohong LiDepartment of Anatomical Sciences and Neurobiology, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA. x0li0013@louisville.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8345-9164
Nigel G F CooperDepartment of Anatomical Sciences and Neurobiology, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA.
Timothy E O'TooleEnvirome Institute, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA.
Eric C RouchkaDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA.

Funding

WKU Lead Faculty AwardP20GM103436 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE · PI ERIC C ROUCHKA · 2012 to 2026
$60.1M
Foundation for the National Institutes of Health P20GM103436NIGMS NIH HHS P20 GM103436
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHigh-throughput RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) has evolved as an important analytical tool in molecular biology. Although the utility and importance of this technique have grown, uncertainties regarding the proper analysis of RNA-seq data remain. Of primary concern, there is no consensus regarding which normalization and statistical methods are the most appropriate for analyzing this data. The lack of standardized analytical methods leads to uncertainties in data interpretation and study reproducibility, especially with studies reporting high false discovery rates. In this study, we compared a recently developed normalization method, UQ-pgQ2, with three of the most frequently used alternatives including RLE (relative log estimate), TMM (Trimmed-mean M values) and UQ (upper quartile normalization) in the analysis of RNA-seq data. We evaluated the performance of these methods for gene-level differential expression analysis by considering the factors, including: 1) normalization combined with the choice of a Wald test from DESeq2 and an exact test/QL (Quasi-likelihood) F-Test from edgeR; 2) sample sizes in two balanced two-group comparisons; and 3) sequencing read depths.

resultsUsing the MAQC RNA-seq datasets with small sample replicates, we found that UQ-pgQ2 normalization combined with an exact test can achieve better performance in term of power and specificity in differential gene expression analysis. However, using an intra-group analysis of false positives from real and simulated data, we found that a Wald test performs better than an exact test when the number of sample replicates is large and that a QL F-test performs the best given sample sizes of 5, 10 and 15 for any normalization. The RLE, TMM and UQ methods performed similarly given a desired sample size.

conclusionWe found the UQ-pgQ2 method combined with an exact test/QL F-test is the best choice in order to control false positives when the sample size is small. When the sample size is large, UQ-pgQ2 with a QL F-test is a better choice for the type I error control in an intra-group analysis. We observed read depths have a minimal impact for differential gene expression analysis based on the simulated data.

Indexed as

Gene Expression ProfilingGene LibraryHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingAlgorithmsComputational BiologyHumansMonte Carlo MethodNeoplasmsReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificitySoftwareDifferentially expressed genesNormalizationRNA-seqSample sizesStatistical test

Identifiers

PMID31992223
PMCPMC6986029

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.