↓ Skip to main content

Evaluating statistical analysis models for RNA sequencing experiments

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Genetics, January 2013
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 (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
9 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
117 Mendeley
citeulike
5 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
Evaluating statistical analysis models for RNA sequencing experiments
Published in
Frontiers in Genetics, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fgene.2013.00178
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pablo D. Reeb, Juan P. Steibel

Abstract

Validating statistical analysis methods for RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) experiments is a complex task. Researchers often find themselves having to decide between competing models or assessing the reliability of results obtained with a designated analysis program. Computer simulation has been the most frequently used procedure to verify the adequacy of a model. However, datasets generated by simulations depend on the parameterization and the assumptions of the selected model. Moreover, such datasets may constitute a partial representation of reality as the complexity or RNA-seq data is hard to mimic. We present the use of plasmode datasets to complement the evaluation of statistical models for RNA-seq data. A plasmode is a dataset obtained from experimental data but for which come truth is known. Using a set of simulated scenarios of technical and biological replicates, and public available datasets, we illustrate how to design algorithms to construct plasmodes under different experimental conditions. We contrast results from two types of methods for RNA-seq: (1) models based on negative binomial distribution (edgeR and DESeq), and (2) Gaussian models applied after transformation of data (MAANOVA). Results emphasize the fact that deciding what method to use may be experiment-specific due to the unknown distributions of expression levels. Plasmodes may contribute to choose which method to apply by using a similar pre-existing dataset. The promising results obtained from this approach, emphasize the need of promoting and improving systematic data sharing across the research community to facilitate plasmode building. Although we illustrate the use of plasmode for comparing differential expression analysis models, the flexibility of plasmode construction allows comparing upstream analysis, as normalization procedures or alignment pipelines, as well.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 117 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 10 9%
Brazil 3 3%
United Kingdom 2 2%
Spain 2 2%
Norway 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Thailand 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 95 81%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 29%
Researcher 30 26%
Professor > Associate Professor 11 9%
Student > Master 9 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 5%
Other 16 14%
Unknown 11 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 70 60%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 19 16%
Computer Science 6 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 <1%
Other 4 3%
Unknown 13 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 08 October 2013.
All research outputs
#2,437,306
of 22,721,584 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Genetics
#622
of 11,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,898
of 280,761 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Genetics
#31
of 319 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,721,584 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,757 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. 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 280,761 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 319 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 90% of its contemporaries.