Our system is currently under heavy load due to increased usage. We're actively working on upgrades to improve performance. Thank you for your patience.
2016
DOI: 10.1093/bib/bbw057
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of methods to detect differentially expressed genes between single-cell populations

Abstract: We compared five statistical methods to detect differentially expressed genes between two distinct single-cell populations. Currently, it remains unclear whether differential expression methods developed originally for conventional bulk RNA-seq data can also be applied to single-cell RNA-seq data analysis. Our results in three diverse comparison settings showed marked differences between the different methods in terms of the number of detections as well as their sensitivity and specificity. They, however, did … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

6
114
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1
1

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 93 publications
(123 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
6
114
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Similarly to what was previously done by others (Kharchenko et al, 2014; Jaakkola et al, 2016), we used the top 1,000 DEGs from Moliner et al as “positive control” to test the ability of the benchmarked tools to detect true positive genes. ScRNA-seq data, containing raw counts for 22,928 genes (excluded 8 spike-ins), were retrieved from GEO database with accession number GSE29087.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Similarly to what was previously done by others (Kharchenko et al, 2014; Jaakkola et al, 2016), we used the top 1,000 DEGs from Moliner et al as “positive control” to test the ability of the benchmarked tools to detect true positive genes. ScRNA-seq data, containing raw counts for 22,928 genes (excluded 8 spike-ins), were retrieved from GEO database with accession number GSE29087.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…2H). The slowest tool was SCDE (684 min), as reported in previous studies (Sengupta et al 2016;Jaakkola et al 2017). We next compared the scalability of bigSCale to MAST with respect to samples sizes.…”
Section: Identification Of Differentially Expressed Genesmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Similarly as in our recent study [9], we compared different cell populations. The count table was downloaded from GEO with accession number GSE70580.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%