Back

Background modeling, Quality Control and Normalization for GeoMx RNA data with GeoDiff

Yang, L.; Yang, Z.; Danaher, P.; Zimmerman, S.; Hether, T.; Henderson, D. A.; Beechem, J. M.

2022-05-29 bioinformatics
10.1101/2022.05.26.493637 bioRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundNanoStrings GeoMx Digital Spatial Profiler (DSP) RNA assay can measure mRNA from hundreds of regions of customizable shape and size, yet it gives unique challenge in Quality Control(QC) and normalizating due to the omnipresent background noise incurred by the non-specific probe binding, which could not be addressed by conventional methods. Results and discussionUsing Poisson Background model, Background Score Test, Negative Binomial threshold model and Poisson threshold model for normalization from the R package GeoDiff, we perform tasks including size factor estimation, QC and normalization on GoeMx RNA assay data. They are shown to outperform conventional methods like Limit of Quantification for QC as to consistency/false positive rate and 75% quantile normalization as to eliminating technical variability and recovering true signal. ConclusionsWe present a statistical model based workflow for QC and normalizing GeoMx RNA data using GeoDiff, justified by statistical theory and validated by real/simulated data.

Matching journals

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

1
BMC Bioinformatics
○ 457 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
22.7%
Similar papers in this journal
2
Bioinformatics
◐ 1204 papers in training set
Top 2%
13.4%
Similar papers in this journal
3
Briefings in Bioinformatics
◐ 354 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
13.1%
Similar papers in this journal
4
PLOS Computational Biology
● 1863 papers in training set
Top 6%
6.5%
Similar papers in this journal
50% of probability mass above
5
PLOS ONE
● 5266 papers in training set
Top 26%
5.7%
Similar papers in this journal
6
BMC Genomics
○ 406 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.6%
7
IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics
● 38 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.9%
8
GigaScience
◐ 212 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.5%
9
Scientific Reports
○ 3612 papers in training set
Top 44%
2.2%
10
Genomics
○ 64 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
2.0%
11
Frontiers in Genetics
○ 230 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
12
Genome Biology
○ 637 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.7%
13
Bioinformatics Advances
◐ 203 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.5%
14
NAR Genomics and Bioinformatics
◐ 242 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.5%
15
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
● 242 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.4%
16
Journal of Computational Biology
○ 48 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.2%
17
Methods
○ 34 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
18
Genes
○ 144 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
19
PeerJ
◐ 308 papers in training set
Top 12%
0.6%
20
iScience
○ 1154 papers in training set
Top 39%
0.6%
21
Computers in Biology and Medicine
○ 128 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.6%
22
Nucleic Acids Research
◐ 1281 papers in training set
Top 16%
0.5%
23
Gigabyte
● 62 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
24
Computational Biology and Chemistry
○ 28 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%
25
Frontiers in Bioinformatics
○ 49 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
26
Communications Biology
○ 993 papers in training set
Top 38%
0.5%

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.