Abstract:Finding the right balance of quality and quantity can be important, and it is essential that project quality does not drop below the level where important main conclusions are missed or misstated. We use knock-out and over-expression studies as a simplification to test recovery of a known causal gene in RNA-Seq cell line experiments. When single-end RNA-Seq reads are aligned with STAR and quantified with htseq-count, we found potential value in testing the use of the Generalized Linear Model (GLM) implementation of edgeR with robust dispersion estimation more frequently for either single-variate or multi-variate 2-group comparisons (with the possibility of defining criteria less stringent than |fold-change| > 1.5 and FDR < 0.05). When considering a limited number of patient sample comparisons with larger sample size, there might be some decreased variability between methods (except for DESeq1). However, at the same time, the ranking of the gene identified using immunohistochemistry (for ER/PR/HER2 in breast cancer samples from The Cancer Genome Atlas) showed as possible shift in performance compared to the cell line comparisons, potentially highlighting utility for standard statistical tests and/or limma-based analysis with larger sample sizes. If this continues to be true in additional studies and comparisons, then that could be consistent with the possibility that it may be important to allocate time for potential methods troubleshooting for genomics projects. Analysis of public data presented in this study does not consider all experimental designs, and presentation of downstream analysis is limited. So, any estimate from this simplification would be an underestimation of the true need for some methods testing for every project. Additionally, this set of independent cell line experiments has a limitation in being able to determine the frequency of missing a highly important gene if the problem is rare (such as 10% or lower). For example, if there was an assumption that only one method can be tested for “initial” analysis, then it is not completely clear to the extent that using edgeR-robust might perform better than DESeq2 in the cell line experiments. Importantly, we do not wish to cause undue concern, and we believe that it should often be possible to define a gene expression differential expression workflow that is suitable for some purposes for many samples. Nevertheless, at the same time, we provide a variety of measures that we believe emphasize the need to critically assess every individual project and maximize confidence in published results.

Exaggerated false positives by popular differential expression methods when analyzing human population samples

A statistical method for the conservative adjustment of false discovery rate (q-value)

Winsorization greatly reduces false positives by popular differential expression methods when analyzing human population samples

Response to "Neglecting normalization impact in semi-synthetic RNA-seq data simulation generates artificial false positives" and "Winsorization greatly reduces false positives by popular differential expression methods when analyzing human population samples"

Neglecting the impact of normalization in semi-synthetic RNA-seq data simulations generates artificial false positives

Group Heteroscedasticity - A Silent Saboteur of Power and False Discovery in RNA-Seq Differential Expression

Degps is a Powerful Tool for Detecting Differential Expression in RNA-sequencing Studies

Experimental validation of methods for differential gene expression analysis and sample pooling in RNA-seq

Critical Differential Expression Assessment for Individual Bulk RNA-Seq Projects

Genes Expressed at Low Levels Raise False Discovery Rates in RNA Samples Contaminated with Genomic DNA

Confronting false discoveries in single-cell differential expression

A two-step strategy for detecting differential gene expression in cDNA microarray data

Power analysis and sample size estimation for RNA-Seq differential expression

Directional false discovery rate control in large-scale multiple comparisons

Novel Statistical Framework to Identify Differentially Expressed Genes Allowing Transcriptomic Background Differences

High heterogeneity undermines generalization of differential expression results in RNA-Seq analysis

Biases in differential expression analysis of RNA-seq data: A matter of replicate type

False discovery rate control: Moving beyond the Benjamini–Hochberg method

Evaluation of tools for differential gene expression analysis by RNA-seq on a 48 biological replicate experiment

Differential analysis in Transcriptomic: The strength of randomly picking 'reference' genes

Differential analyses for RNA-seq: transcript-level estimates improve gene-level inferences