Cargando…
Comparative analysis of differential gene expression tools for RNA sequencing time course data
RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) has become a standard procedure to investigate transcriptional changes between conditions and is routinely used in research and clinics. While standard differential expression (DE) analysis between two conditions has been extensively studied, and improved over the past decad...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Oxford University Press
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6357553/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29028903 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbx115 |
_version_ | 1783391822871003136 |
---|---|
author | Spies, Daniel Renz, Peter F Beyer, Tobias A Ciaudo, Constance |
author_facet | Spies, Daniel Renz, Peter F Beyer, Tobias A Ciaudo, Constance |
author_sort | Spies, Daniel |
collection | PubMed |
description | RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) has become a standard procedure to investigate transcriptional changes between conditions and is routinely used in research and clinics. While standard differential expression (DE) analysis between two conditions has been extensively studied, and improved over the past decades, RNA-seq time course (TC) DE analysis algorithms are still in their early stages. In this study, we compare, for the first time, existing TC RNA-seq tools on an extensive simulation data set and validated the best performing tools on published data. Surprisingly, TC tools were outperformed by the classical pairwise comparison approach on short time series (<8 time points) in terms of overall performance and robustness to noise, mostly because of high number of false positives, with the exception of ImpulseDE2. Overlapping of candidate lists between tools improved this shortcoming, as the majority of false-positive, but not true-positive, candidates were unique for each method. On longer time series, pairwise approach was less efficient on the overall performance compared with splineTC and maSigPro, which did not identify any false-positive candidate. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6357553 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | Oxford University Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-63575532019-02-08 Comparative analysis of differential gene expression tools for RNA sequencing time course data Spies, Daniel Renz, Peter F Beyer, Tobias A Ciaudo, Constance Brief Bioinform Paper RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) has become a standard procedure to investigate transcriptional changes between conditions and is routinely used in research and clinics. While standard differential expression (DE) analysis between two conditions has been extensively studied, and improved over the past decades, RNA-seq time course (TC) DE analysis algorithms are still in their early stages. In this study, we compare, for the first time, existing TC RNA-seq tools on an extensive simulation data set and validated the best performing tools on published data. Surprisingly, TC tools were outperformed by the classical pairwise comparison approach on short time series (<8 time points) in terms of overall performance and robustness to noise, mostly because of high number of false positives, with the exception of ImpulseDE2. Overlapping of candidate lists between tools improved this shortcoming, as the majority of false-positive, but not true-positive, candidates were unique for each method. On longer time series, pairwise approach was less efficient on the overall performance compared with splineTC and maSigPro, which did not identify any false-positive candidate. Oxford University Press 2017-10-06 /pmc/articles/PMC6357553/ /pubmed/29028903 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbx115 Text en © The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com |
spellingShingle | Paper Spies, Daniel Renz, Peter F Beyer, Tobias A Ciaudo, Constance Comparative analysis of differential gene expression tools for RNA sequencing time course data |
title | Comparative analysis of differential gene expression tools for RNA sequencing time course data |
title_full | Comparative analysis of differential gene expression tools for RNA sequencing time course data |
title_fullStr | Comparative analysis of differential gene expression tools for RNA sequencing time course data |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparative analysis of differential gene expression tools for RNA sequencing time course data |
title_short | Comparative analysis of differential gene expression tools for RNA sequencing time course data |
title_sort | comparative analysis of differential gene expression tools for rna sequencing time course data |
topic | Paper |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6357553/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29028903 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbx115 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT spiesdaniel comparativeanalysisofdifferentialgeneexpressiontoolsforrnasequencingtimecoursedata AT renzpeterf comparativeanalysisofdifferentialgeneexpressiontoolsforrnasequencingtimecoursedata AT beyertobiasa comparativeanalysisofdifferentialgeneexpressiontoolsforrnasequencingtimecoursedata AT ciaudoconstance comparativeanalysisofdifferentialgeneexpressiontoolsforrnasequencingtimecoursedata |