Title |
The importance of study design for detecting differentially abundant features in high-throughput experiments
|
---|---|
Published in |
Genome Biology, December 2014
|
DOI | 10.1186/s13059-014-0527-7 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Huaien Luo, Juntao Li, Burton Kuan Hui Chia, Paul Robson, Niranjan Nagarajan |
Abstract |
High-throughput assays, such as RNA-seq, to detect differential abundance are widely used. Variable performance across statistical tests, normalizations, and conditions leads to resource wastage and reduced sensitivity. EDDA represents a first, general design tool for RNA-seq, Nanostring, and metagenomic analysis, that rationally selects tests, predicts performance, and plans experiments to minimize resource wastage. Case studies highlight EDDA's ability to model single-cell RNA-seq, suggesting ways to reduce sequencing costs up to five-fold and improving metagenomic biomarker detection through improved test selection. EDDA's novel mode-based normalization for detecting differential abundance improves robustness by 10% to 20% and precision by up to 140%. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 5 | 23% |
United Kingdom | 2 | 9% |
Singapore | 2 | 9% |
Sweden | 1 | 5% |
New Zealand | 1 | 5% |
Australia | 1 | 5% |
Spain | 1 | 5% |
India | 1 | 5% |
Norway | 1 | 5% |
Other | 1 | 5% |
Unknown | 6 | 27% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Scientists | 14 | 64% |
Members of the public | 7 | 32% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 4 | 4% |
Sweden | 3 | 3% |
France | 1 | <1% |
Norway | 1 | <1% |
Canada | 1 | <1% |
Taiwan | 1 | <1% |
Brazil | 1 | <1% |
Denmark | 1 | <1% |
Mexico | 1 | <1% |
Other | 2 | 2% |
Unknown | 90 | 85% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 37 | 35% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 23 | 22% |
Student > Master | 12 | 11% |
Other | 7 | 7% |
Professor | 4 | 4% |
Other | 17 | 16% |
Unknown | 6 | 6% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 58 | 55% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 22 | 21% |
Computer Science | 9 | 8% |
Environmental Science | 2 | 2% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | <1% |
Other | 4 | 4% |
Unknown | 10 | 9% |