↓ Skip to main content

How many biological replicates are needed in an RNA-seq experiment and which differential expression tool should you use?

Overview of attention for article published in RNA, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#1 of 2,632)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
269 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1300 Mendeley
citeulike
13 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
How many biological replicates are needed in an RNA-seq experiment and which differential expression tool should you use?
Published in
RNA, March 2016
DOI 10.1261/rna.053959.115
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicholas J. Schurch, Pietá Schofield, Marek Gierliński, Christian Cole, Alexander Sherstnev, Vijender Singh, Nicola Wrobel, Karim Gharbi, Gordon G. Simpson, Tom Owen-Hughes, Mark Blaxter, Geoffrey J. Barton

Abstract

RNA-seq is now the technology of choice for genome-wide differential gene expression experiments, but it is not clear how many biological replicates are needed to ensure valid biological interpretation of the results or which statistical tools are best for analyzing the data. An RNA-seq experiment with 48 biological replicates in each of two conditions was performed to answer these questions and provide guidelines for experimental design. With three biological replicates, eight of the 11 tools evaluated found only 20%-40% of the significantly differentially expressed (SDE) genes identified with the full set of 42 clean replicates. This rises to >85% for the subset of SDE genes changing in expression by more than fourfold. To achieve >85% for all SDE genes regardless of fold change requires more than 20 biological replicates. The same eight tools successfully control their false discovery rate at ≲5% for all numbers of replicates, while the remaining three tools fail to control their FDR adequately, particularly for low numbers of replicates. For future RNA-seq experiments, these results suggest that more than six biological replicates should be used, rising to more than 12 when it is important to identify SDE genes for all fold changes. If less than 12 replicates are used, a superior combination of true positive and false positive performances makesedgeRthe leading tool. For higher replicate numbers, minimizing false positives is more important andDESeqmarginally outperforms the other tools.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 244 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,300 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 14 1%
Spain 5 <1%
Germany 5 <1%
United Kingdom 4 <1%
Brazil 4 <1%
Japan 3 <1%
Australia 2 <1%
Denmark 2 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Other 12 <1%
Unknown 1248 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 356 27%
Researcher 320 25%
Student > Master 169 13%
Student > Bachelor 97 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 70 5%
Other 175 13%
Unknown 113 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 519 40%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 388 30%
Medicine and Dentistry 55 4%
Computer Science 38 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 36 3%
Other 120 9%
Unknown 144 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 164. 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 13 June 2020.
All research outputs
#111,572
of 15,424,895 outputs
Outputs from RNA
#1
of 2,632 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,924
of 232,394 outputs
Outputs of similar age from RNA
#1
of 99 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,424,895 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,632 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 232,394 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 99 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 98% of its contemporaries.