Back

Are there systematic biases in RNA-seq data analysis? A case study for Amphimedon queenslandica sponge as a model object.

Feranchuk, S.

2020-03-02 developmental biology
10.1101/2020.02.28.969642 bioRxiv
Show abstract

BACKGROUNDThe performance of a functional annotation approach for RNA-seq bioinformatics pipelines was to be compared with the method where groups of genes are generated with no relation to ontologes. Three publicly available RNA-Seq experiments for Amphimedon queenslandica sponge were used for the designed comparison. One of these experiments was referred in the publication where stages of embryo development were compared for a wide range of animal species. METHODSThe expression levels were re-calculated here for three independent series of experiments. The functional annotation of differential expression levels was than conducted. This allow to compare an applicability of the two approaches, and to re-evaluate the interpretation provided in the mentioned publication. RESULTSIt was confirmed by the conventional approach that Wnt and Notch pathways do operate in a development of a sponge embryo. The method of annotation which uses unbounded grouping of genes was effective in an ability to separate development stages of sponge embryo. In addition, the published results were by a suggestion distorted by an artifact, caused by a positive feedback in the stage of data processing.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
22.9%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 14%
12.9%
3
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 6%
10.3%
4
BMC Bioinformatics
383 papers in training set
Top 2%
6.5%
50% of probability mass above
5
Developmental Biology
134 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
4.0%
6
Biology Open
130 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.3%
7
Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology
218 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.6%
8
Genomics
60 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.9%
9
BMC Genomics
328 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.9%
10
Biology
43 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.7%
11
BMC Research Notes
29 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.5%
12
Frontiers in Genetics
197 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.5%
13
BMC Biology
248 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
14
BioSystems
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.1%
15
F1000Research
79 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
16
Genes
126 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
17
BMC Ecology and Evolution
49 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
18
Frontiers in Physiology
93 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
19
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
60 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
20
Gigabyte
60 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
21
Developmental Dynamics
50 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
22
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 23%
0.8%
23
Royal Society Open Science
193 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
24
Biochemistry and Biophysics Reports
28 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
25
MethodsX
14 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
26
Open Biology
95 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
27
Briefings in Bioinformatics
326 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.7%
28
Frontiers in Bioinformatics
45 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
29
Data in Brief
13 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.7%
30
Biosystems
18 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%