↓ Skip to main content

Measurement of mRNA abundance using RNA-seq data: RPKM measure is inconsistent among samples

Overview of attention for article published in Theory in Biosciences, August 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#6 of 221)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
22 X users
patent
5 patents
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
1615 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1777 Mendeley
citeulike
8 CiteULike
Title
Measurement of mRNA abundance using RNA-seq data: RPKM measure is inconsistent among samples
Published in
Theory in Biosciences, August 2012
DOI 10.1007/s12064-012-0162-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Günter P. Wagner, Koryu Kin, Vincent J. Lynch

Abstract

Measures of RNA abundance are important for many areas of biology and often obtained from high-throughput RNA sequencing methods such as Illumina sequence data. These measures need to be normalized to remove technical biases inherent in the sequencing approach, most notably the length of the RNA species and the sequencing depth of a sample. These biases are corrected in the widely used reads per kilobase per million reads (RPKM) measure. Here, we argue that the intended meaning of RPKM is a measure of relative molar RNA concentration (rmc) and show that for each set of transcripts the average rmc is a constant, namely the inverse of the number of transcripts mapped. Further, we show that RPKM does not respect this invariance property and thus cannot be an accurate measure of rmc. We propose a slight modification of RPKM that eliminates this inconsistency and call it TPM for transcripts per million. TPM respects the average invariance and eliminates statistical biases inherent in the RPKM measure.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 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 1,777 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 32 2%
Germany 12 <1%
United Kingdom 10 <1%
Spain 6 <1%
France 5 <1%
Sweden 4 <1%
Mexico 4 <1%
Brazil 3 <1%
Canada 3 <1%
Other 25 1%
Unknown 1673 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 464 26%
Researcher 356 20%
Student > Master 223 13%
Student > Bachelor 134 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 100 6%
Other 247 14%
Unknown 253 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 715 40%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 448 25%
Computer Science 70 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 43 2%
Environmental Science 39 2%
Other 167 9%
Unknown 295 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. 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 28 November 2023.
All research outputs
#1,367,412
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Theory in Biosciences
#6
of 221 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,810
of 189,300 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Theory in Biosciences
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 221 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 189,300 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them