Cargando…

The impact of amplification on differential expression analyses by RNA-seq

Currently, quantitative RNA-seq methods are pushed to work with increasingly small starting amounts of RNA that require amplification. However, it is unclear how much noise or bias amplification introduces and how this affects precision and accuracy of RNA quantification. To assess the effects of am...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Parekh, Swati, Ziegenhain, Christoph, Vieth, Beate, Enard, Wolfgang, Hellmann, Ines
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4860583/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27156886
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep25533
_version_ 1782431091119882240
author Parekh, Swati
Ziegenhain, Christoph
Vieth, Beate
Enard, Wolfgang
Hellmann, Ines
author_facet Parekh, Swati
Ziegenhain, Christoph
Vieth, Beate
Enard, Wolfgang
Hellmann, Ines
author_sort Parekh, Swati
collection PubMed
description Currently, quantitative RNA-seq methods are pushed to work with increasingly small starting amounts of RNA that require amplification. However, it is unclear how much noise or bias amplification introduces and how this affects precision and accuracy of RNA quantification. To assess the effects of amplification, reads that originated from the same RNA molecule (PCR-duplicates) need to be identified. Computationally, read duplicates are defined by their mapping position, which does not distinguish PCR- from natural duplicates and hence it is unclear how to treat duplicated reads. Here, we generate and analyse RNA-seq data sets prepared using three different protocols (Smart-Seq, TruSeq and UMI-seq). We find that a large fraction of computationally identified read duplicates are not PCR duplicates and can be explained by sampling and fragmentation bias. Consequently, the computational removal of duplicates does improve neither accuracy nor precision and can actually worsen the power and the False Discovery Rate (FDR) for differential gene expression. Even when duplicates are experimentally identified by unique molecular identifiers (UMIs), power and FDR are only mildly improved. However, the pooling of samples as made possible by the early barcoding of the UMI-protocol leads to an appreciable increase in the power to detect differentially expressed genes.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4860583
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Nature Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-48605832016-05-20 The impact of amplification on differential expression analyses by RNA-seq Parekh, Swati Ziegenhain, Christoph Vieth, Beate Enard, Wolfgang Hellmann, Ines Sci Rep Article Currently, quantitative RNA-seq methods are pushed to work with increasingly small starting amounts of RNA that require amplification. However, it is unclear how much noise or bias amplification introduces and how this affects precision and accuracy of RNA quantification. To assess the effects of amplification, reads that originated from the same RNA molecule (PCR-duplicates) need to be identified. Computationally, read duplicates are defined by their mapping position, which does not distinguish PCR- from natural duplicates and hence it is unclear how to treat duplicated reads. Here, we generate and analyse RNA-seq data sets prepared using three different protocols (Smart-Seq, TruSeq and UMI-seq). We find that a large fraction of computationally identified read duplicates are not PCR duplicates and can be explained by sampling and fragmentation bias. Consequently, the computational removal of duplicates does improve neither accuracy nor precision and can actually worsen the power and the False Discovery Rate (FDR) for differential gene expression. Even when duplicates are experimentally identified by unique molecular identifiers (UMIs), power and FDR are only mildly improved. However, the pooling of samples as made possible by the early barcoding of the UMI-protocol leads to an appreciable increase in the power to detect differentially expressed genes. Nature Publishing Group 2016-05-09 /pmc/articles/PMC4860583/ /pubmed/27156886 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep25533 Text en Copyright © 2016, Macmillan Publishers Limited http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
spellingShingle Article
Parekh, Swati
Ziegenhain, Christoph
Vieth, Beate
Enard, Wolfgang
Hellmann, Ines
The impact of amplification on differential expression analyses by RNA-seq
title The impact of amplification on differential expression analyses by RNA-seq
title_full The impact of amplification on differential expression analyses by RNA-seq
title_fullStr The impact of amplification on differential expression analyses by RNA-seq
title_full_unstemmed The impact of amplification on differential expression analyses by RNA-seq
title_short The impact of amplification on differential expression analyses by RNA-seq
title_sort impact of amplification on differential expression analyses by rna-seq
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4860583/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27156886
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep25533
work_keys_str_mv AT parekhswati theimpactofamplificationondifferentialexpressionanalysesbyrnaseq
AT ziegenhainchristoph theimpactofamplificationondifferentialexpressionanalysesbyrnaseq
AT viethbeate theimpactofamplificationondifferentialexpressionanalysesbyrnaseq
AT enardwolfgang theimpactofamplificationondifferentialexpressionanalysesbyrnaseq
AT hellmannines theimpactofamplificationondifferentialexpressionanalysesbyrnaseq
AT parekhswati impactofamplificationondifferentialexpressionanalysesbyrnaseq
AT ziegenhainchristoph impactofamplificationondifferentialexpressionanalysesbyrnaseq
AT viethbeate impactofamplificationondifferentialexpressionanalysesbyrnaseq
AT enardwolfgang impactofamplificationondifferentialexpressionanalysesbyrnaseq
AT hellmannines impactofamplificationondifferentialexpressionanalysesbyrnaseq