Skip to main content

Empirical assessment of analysis workflows for differential expression analysis of human samples using RNA-Seq.

Citation
Williams, C. R., et al. “Empirical Assessment Of Analysis Workflows For Differential Expression Analysis Of Human Samples Using Rna-Seq.”. Bmc Bioinformatics, p. 38.
Author Claire R Williams, Alyssa Baccarella, Jay Z Parrish, Charles C Kim
Keywords Classical, Gene expression analysis, monocytes, Nonclassical, RNA-seq
Abstract

BACKGROUND: RNA-Seq has supplanted microarrays as the preferred method of transcriptome-wide identification of differentially expressed genes. However, RNA-Seq analysis is still rapidly evolving, with a large number of tools available for each of the three major processing steps: read alignment, expression modeling, and identification of differentially expressed genes. Although some studies have benchmarked these tools against gold standard gene expression sets, few have evaluated their performance in concert with one another. Additionally, there is a general lack of testing of such tools on real-world, physiologically relevant datasets, which often possess qualities not reflected in tightly controlled reference RNA samples or synthetic datasets.

RESULTS: Here, we evaluate 219 combinatorial implementations of the most commonly used analysis tools for their impact on differential gene expression analysis by RNA-Seq. A test dataset was generated using highly purified human classical and nonclassical monocyte subsets from a clinical cohort, allowing us to evaluate the performance of 495 unique workflows, when accounting for differences in expression units and gene- versus transcript-level estimation. We find that the choice of methodologies leads to wide variation in the number of genes called significant, as well as in performance as gauged by precision and recall, calculated by comparing our RNA-Seq results to those from four previously published microarray and BeadChip analyses of the same cell populations. The method of differential gene expression identification exhibited the strongest impact on performance, with smaller impacts from the choice of read aligner and expression modeler. Many workflows were found to exhibit similar overall performance, but with differences in their calibration, with some biased toward higher precision and others toward higher recall.

CONCLUSIONS: There is significant heterogeneity in the performance of RNA-Seq workflows to identify differentially expressed genes. Among the higher performing workflows, different workflows exhibit a precision/recall tradeoff, and the ultimate choice of workflow should take into consideration how the results will be used in subsequent applications. Our analyses highlight the performance characteristics of these workflows, and the data generated in this study could also serve as a useful resource for future development of software for RNA-Seq analysis.

Year of Publication
2017
Journal
BMC bioinformatics
Volume
18
Issue
1
Number of Pages
38
Date Published
01/2017
ISSN Number
1471-2105
DOI
10.1186/s12859-016-1457-z
Alternate Journal
BMC Bioinformatics
PMID
28095772
PMCID
PMC5240434
Download citation