↓ Skip to main content

Comparing the normalization methods for the differential analysis of Illumina high-throughput RNA-Seq data

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
17 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
155 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
598 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
Comparing the normalization methods for the differential analysis of Illumina high-throughput RNA-Seq data
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12859-015-0778-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peipei Li, Yongjun Piao, Ho Sun Shon, Keun Ho Ryu

Abstract

Recently, rapid improvements in technology and decrease in sequencing costs have made RNA-Seq a widely used technique to quantify gene expression levels. Various normalization approaches have been proposed, owing to the importance of normalization in the analysis of RNA-Seq data. A comparison of recently proposed normalization methods is required to generate suitable guidelines for the selection of the most appropriate approach for future experiments. In this paper, we compared eight non-abundance (RC, UQ, Med, TMM, DESeq, Q, RPKM, and ERPKM) and two abundance estimation normalization methods (RSEM and Sailfish). The experiments were based on real Illumina high-throughput RNA-Seq of 35- and 76-nucleotide sequences produced in the MAQC project and simulation reads. Reads were mapped with human genome obtained from UCSC Genome Browser Database. For precise evaluation, we investigated Spearman correlation between the normalization results from RNA-Seq and MAQC qRT-PCR values for 996 genes. Based on this work, we showed that out of the eight non-abundance estimation normalization methods, RC, UQ, Med, TMM, DESeq, and Q gave similar normalization results for all data sets. For RNA-Seq of a 35-nucleotide sequence, RPKM showed the highest correlation results, but for RNA-Seq of a 76-nucleotide sequence, least correlation was observed than the other methods. ERPKM did not improve results than RPKM. Between two abundance estimation normalization methods, for RNA-Seq of a 35-nucleotide sequence, higher correlation was obtained with Sailfish than that with RSEM, which was better than without using abundance estimation methods. However, for RNA-Seq of a 76-nucleotide sequence, the results achieved by RSEM were similar to without applying abundance estimation methods, and were much better than with Sailfish. Furthermore, we found that adding a poly-A tail increased alignment numbers, but did not improve normalization results. Spearman correlation analysis revealed that RC, UQ, Med, TMM, DESeq, and Q did not noticeably improve gene expression normalization, regardless of read length. Other normalization methods were more efficient when alignment accuracy was low; Sailfish with RPKM gave the best normalization results. When alignment accuracy was high, RC was sufficient for gene expression calculation. And we suggest ignoring poly-A tail during differential gene expression analysis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 598 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 6 1%
United States 5 <1%
United Kingdom 4 <1%
Spain 3 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Argentina 2 <1%
Sweden 2 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Other 6 1%
Unknown 566 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 162 27%
Researcher 123 21%
Student > Master 71 12%
Student > Bachelor 54 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 38 6%
Other 58 10%
Unknown 92 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 195 33%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 182 30%
Computer Science 35 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 23 4%
Engineering 11 2%
Other 49 8%
Unknown 103 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 23 December 2015.
All research outputs
#2,247,533
of 24,846,849 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#549
of 7,595 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,949
of 290,670 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#10
of 158 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,846,849 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,595 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 290,670 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 158 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 94% of its contemporaries.