Abstract:The field of human genetics has reached a consensus that it is important to work with diverse and globally representative participant groups. This diverse sampling is required to build a robust understanding of the genomic basis of complex traits and diseases as well as human evolution, and to ensure that all people benefit from downstream scientific discoveries. While previous work has characterized compositional biases and disparities for public genome-wide association (GWAS), microbiome, and epigenomic studies, we currently lack a comprehensive understanding of the degree of bias for transcriptomic studies. To address this gap, we analyzed the metadata for RNA-seq studies from two public databases-the Sequence Read Archive (SRA), representing 795,071 samples from 21,209 studies, and the Database of Genotypes and Phenotypes (dbGaP), representing 167,389 samples from 649 studies. We also randomly selected 620 studies from SRA for detailed, manual evaluation. We found that 3% of samples in SRA and 21% of individuals described in the literature had population descriptors (race, ethnicity, or ancestry); 28% of samples in dbGaP had paired genotype data that was used to empirically infer ancestry. In SRA, dbGaP, and the literature, race, ethnicity, and ancestry terms were frequently conflated and difficult to disambiguate. After standardizing population descriptors, we observed many clear biases: for example, among samples in SRA that were coded using US Census terms, 69.0% came from white donors, corresponding to an 1.2x overrepresentation of this group relative to the US population. Among samples in SRA coded using continental ancestry labels, 55.6% came from European ancestry donors-an 4.1x overrepresentation of this group relative to the global population. These biases were generally similar across datasets (SRA, dbGaP, literature review), and were comparable to previous reports for other 'omics data types. However, we note that, relative to other 'omics data subsets like GWAS, there is considerably less information, of arguably worse quality, about who is participating in RNA-seq studies. Together, these results demonstrate a critical need to improve our thoughtfulness, consistency, and effort around reporting population descriptors in RNA-seq studies, and to more generally strive for greater diversity in this important data type.

Enzyme- and gene-specific biases in reverse transcription of RNA raise concerns for evaluating gene expression

Artifacts and biases of the reverse transcription reaction in RNA sequencing

Minimizing amplification bias during reverse transcription for in vitro selections

Evaluation of qPCR curve analysis methods for reliable biomarker discovery: bias, resolution, precision, and implications

Effects of transcriptional noise on estimates of gene and transcript expression in RNA sequencing experiments

IVT-seq reveals extreme bias in RNA sequencing

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

Bias detection and correction in RNA-Sequencing data

Refined DNase-seq protocol and data analysis reveals intrinsic bias in transcription factor footprint identification

Critical view on oligo(dT)-based RNA-seq: bias arising, modeling, and mitigating

Importance of Transcript Variants in Transcriptome Analyses

Impact of gene annotation choice on the quantification of RNA-seq data

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

Differences in molecular sampling and data processing explain variation among single-cell and single-nucleus RNA-seq experiments

Obtaining reliable RT-qPCR results in molecular diagnostics - MIQE goals and pitfalls for transcriptional biomarker discovery

Improved TGIRT-seq Methods for Comprehensive Transcriptome Profiling with Decreased Adapter Dimer Formation and Bias Correction

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

Public RNA-seq data are not representative of global human diversity

Absolute quantification of mRNA using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction assays.

Failing to account for RNA quantity inflates background and leads to the misleading appearance that PRC2 and GFP bind to RNA in vivo

Variation-preserving normalization unveils blind spots in gene expression profiling