ArticleNucleic acids research2022
Depth normalization of small RNA sequencing: using data and biology to select a suitable method.
Article in Nucleic acids research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Connecting HTT intermediate alleles and microRNA dysregulation to enhanced tauopathy in late-onset Alzheimer's disease.Alzheimer's research & therapy · 2026Article
- miRNA regulation in brain tissue space: the 3'UTR perspective.RNA (New York, N.Y.) · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence-based miRNA analysis for precision oncology: diagnostic and prognostic insights.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2026Review
- Optimizing sample size for supervised machine learning with bulk transcriptomic sequencing: a learning curve approach.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2025Article
- Article
- Epitranscriptome analysis of NAD-capped RNA by spike-in-based normalization and prediction of chronological age.iScience · 2023Article
- NORMSEQ: a tool for evaluation, selection and visualization of RNA-Seq normalization methods.Nucleic acids research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Deep sequencing has become one of the most popular tools for transcriptome profiling in biomedical studies. While an abundance of computational methods exists for 'normalizing' sequencing data to remove unwanted between-sample variations due to experimental handling, there is no consensus on which normalization is the most suitable for a given data set. To address this problem, we developed 'DANA'-an approach for assessing the performance of normalization methods for microRNA sequencing data based on biology-motivated and data-driven metrics. Our approach takes advantage of well-known biological features of microRNAs for their expression pattern and chromosomal clustering to simultaneously assess (i) how effectively normalization removes handling artifacts and (ii) how aptly normalization preserves biological signals. With DANA, we confirm that the performance of eight commonly used normalization methods vary widely across different data sets and provide guidance for selecting a suitable method for the data at hand. Hence, it should be adopted as a routine preprocessing step (preceding normalization) for microRNA sequencing data analysis. DANA is implemented in R and publicly available at https://github.com/LXQin/DANA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.