Department of Biological Sciences, Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology, Ulsan, Republic of Korea.
Department of Mathematical Sciences, Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology, Ulsan, Republic of Korea.
PLoS One. 2020 Apr 30;15(4):e0232271. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232271. eCollection 2020.
Benchmarking RNA-seq differential expression analysis methods using spike-in and simulated RNA-seq data has often yielded inconsistent results. The spike-in data, which were generated from the same bulk RNA sample, only represent technical variability, making the test results less reliable. We compared the performance of 12 differential expression analysis methods for RNA-seq data, including recent variants in widely used software packages, using both RNA spike-in and simulation data for negative binomial (NB) model. Performance of edgeR, DESeq2, and ROTS was particularly different between the two benchmark tests. Then, each method was tested under most extensive simulation conditions especially demonstrating the large impacts of proportion, dispersion, and balance of differentially expressed (DE) genes. DESeq2, a robust version of edgeR (edgeR.rb), voom with TMM normalization (voom.tmm) and sample weights (voom.sw) showed an overall good performance regardless of presence of outliers and proportion of DE genes. The performance of RNA-seq DE gene analysis methods substantially depended on the benchmark used. Based on the simulation results, suitable methods were suggested under various test conditions.
使用 Spike-in 和模拟 RNA-seq 数据对 RNA-seq 差异表达分析方法进行基准测试,常常会产生不一致的结果。 Spike-in 数据是从同一批量 RNA 样本中产生的,只代表技术变异性,使得测试结果不太可靠。我们比较了 12 种 RNA-seq 数据差异表达分析方法的性能,包括广泛使用的软件包中的最新变体,使用负二项式(NB)模型的 RNA Spike-in 和模拟数据。在两种基准测试中,edgeR、DESeq2 和 ROTS 的性能差异特别大。然后,在最广泛的模拟条件下测试每种方法,特别是展示了差异表达(DE)基因的比例、分散度和平衡的巨大影响。DESeq2 是 edgeR 的稳健版本(edgeR.rb),使用 TMM 标准化(voom.tmm)和样本权重(voom.sw),无论是否存在离群值和 DE 基因的比例如何,表现出整体良好的性能。RNA-seq DE 基因分析方法的性能在很大程度上取决于所使用的基准。根据模拟结果,在各种测试条件下建议使用合适的方法。