↓ Skip to main content

MetaDiff: differential isoform expression analysis using random-effects meta-regression

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
8 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
Title
MetaDiff: differential isoform expression analysis using random-effects meta-regression
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12859-015-0623-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cheng Jia, Weihua Guan, Amy Yang, Rui Xiao, W. H. Wilson Tang, Christine S. Moravec, Kenneth B. Margulies, Thomas P. Cappola, Chun Li, Mingyao Li

Abstract

RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq) allows an unbiased survey of the entire transcriptome in a high-throughput manner. A major application of RNA-Seq is to detect differential isoform expression across experimental conditions, which is of great biological interest due to its direct relevance to protein function and disease pathogenesis. Detection of differential isoform expression is challenging because of uncertainty in isoform expression estimation owing to ambiguous reads and variability in precision of the estimates across samples. It is desirable to have a method that can account for these issues and is flexible enough to allow adjustment for covariates. In this paper, we present MetaDiff, a random-effects meta-regression model that naturally fits for the above purposes. Through extensive simulations and analysis of an RNA-Seq dataset on human heart failure, we show that the random-effects meta-regression approach is computationally fast, reliable, and can improve the power of differential expression analysis while controlling for false positives due to the effect of covariates or confounding variables. In contrast, several existing methods either fail to control false discovery rate or have reduced power in the presence of covariates or confounding variables. The source code, compiled JAR package and documentation of MetaDiff are freely available at https://github.com/jiach/MetaDiff . Our results indicate that random-effects meta-regression offers a flexible framework for differential expression analysis of isoforms, particularly when gene expression is influenced by other variables.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 47 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 27%
Researcher 10 20%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Student > Master 4 8%
Other 3 6%
Other 9 18%
Unknown 6 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 37%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 8%
Computer Science 2 4%
Mathematics 1 2%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 10 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 July 2015.
All research outputs
#2,936,775
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#947
of 7,454 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,417
of 265,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#15
of 110 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,454 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 265,875 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 110 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.