↓ Skip to main content

A Comparative Study of Techniques for Differential Expression Analysis on RNA-Seq Data

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
3 blogs
twitter
42 X users
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
207 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
773 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
A Comparative Study of Techniques for Differential Expression Analysis on RNA-Seq Data
Published in
PLOS ONE, August 2014
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0103207
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zong Hong Zhang, Dhanisha J. Jhaveri, Vikki M. Marshall, Denis C. Bauer, Janette Edson, Ramesh K. Narayanan, Gregory J. Robinson, Andreas E. Lundberg, Perry F. Bartlett, Naomi R. Wray, Qiong-Yi Zhao

Abstract

Recent advances in next-generation sequencing technology allow high-throughput cDNA sequencing (RNA-Seq) to be widely applied in transcriptomic studies, in particular for detecting differentially expressed genes between groups. Many software packages have been developed for the identification of differentially expressed genes (DEGs) between treatment groups based on RNA-Seq data. However, there is a lack of consensus on how to approach an optimal study design and choice of suitable software for the analysis. In this comparative study we evaluate the performance of three of the most frequently used software tools: Cufflinks-Cuffdiff2, DESeq and edgeR. A number of important parameters of RNA-Seq technology were taken into consideration, including the number of replicates, sequencing depth, and balanced vs. unbalanced sequencing depth within and between groups. We benchmarked results relative to sets of DEGs identified through either quantitative RT-PCR or microarray. We observed that edgeR performs slightly better than DESeq and Cuffdiff2 in terms of the ability to uncover true positives. Overall, DESeq or taking the intersection of DEGs from two or more tools is recommended if the number of false positives is a major concern in the study. In other circumstances, edgeR is slightly preferable for differential expression analysis at the expense of potentially introducing more false positives.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 42 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 773 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 12 2%
Brazil 5 <1%
United Kingdom 3 <1%
France 2 <1%
Italy 2 <1%
Uruguay 2 <1%
China 2 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
Sweden 2 <1%
Other 13 2%
Unknown 728 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 201 26%
Researcher 159 21%
Student > Master 101 13%
Student > Bachelor 67 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 37 5%
Other 96 12%
Unknown 112 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 314 41%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 174 23%
Computer Science 35 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 23 3%
Neuroscience 21 3%
Other 67 9%
Unknown 139 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 45. 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 31 December 2019.
All research outputs
#935,907
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#12,130
of 224,062 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,902
of 243,800 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#299
of 4,730 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 224,062 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 243,800 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,730 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.