Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Comparative analysis of differential gene expression analysis tools for single-cell RNA sequencing data.
Wang, Tianyu; Li, Boyang; Nelson, Craig E; Nabavi, Sheida.
Afiliação
  • Wang T; Computer Science and Engineering Department, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA.
  • Li B; Department of Molecular & Cell Biology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA.
  • Nelson CE; Department of Molecular & Cell Biology, The Institute for Systems Genomics, CLAS, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA.
  • Nabavi S; Computer Science and Engineering Department, The Institute for Systems Genomics, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA. sheida.nabavi@uconn.edu.
BMC Bioinformatics ; 20(1): 40, 2019 Jan 18.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30658573
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

The analysis of single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNAseq) data plays an important role in understanding the intrinsic and extrinsic cellular processes in biological and biomedical research. One significant effort in this area is the detection of differentially expressed (DE) genes. scRNAseq data, however, are highly heterogeneous and have a large number of zero counts, which introduces challenges in detecting DE genes. Addressing these challenges requires employing new approaches beyond the conventional ones, which are based on a nonzero difference in average expression. Several methods have been developed for differential gene expression analysis of scRNAseq data. To provide guidance on choosing an appropriate tool or developing a new one, it is necessary to evaluate and compare the performance of differential gene expression analysis methods for scRNAseq data.

RESULTS:

In this study, we conducted a comprehensive evaluation of the performance of eleven differential gene expression analysis software tools, which are designed for scRNAseq data or can be applied to them. We used simulated and real data to evaluate the accuracy and precision of detection. Using simulated data, we investigated the effect of sample size on the detection accuracy of the tools. Using real data, we examined the agreement among the tools in identifying DE genes, the run time of the tools, and the biological relevance of the detected DE genes.

CONCLUSIONS:

In general, agreement among the tools in calling DE genes is not high. There is a trade-off between true-positive rates and the precision of calling DE genes. Methods with higher true positive rates tend to show low precision due to their introducing false positives, whereas methods with high precision show low true positive rates due to identifying few DE genes. We observed that current methods designed for scRNAseq data do not tend to show better performance compared to methods designed for bulk RNAseq data. Data multimodality and abundance of zero read counts are the main characteristics of scRNAseq data, which play important roles in the performance of differential gene expression analysis methods and need to be considered in terms of the development of new methods.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Análise de Sequência de RNA / Perfilação da Expressão Gênica Tipo de estudo: Prognostic_studies Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2019 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Análise de Sequência de RNA / Perfilação da Expressão Gênica Tipo de estudo: Prognostic_studies Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2019 Tipo de documento: Article