Impact of Adaptive Filtering on Power and False Discovery Rate in RNA-seq Experiments

Overview

Journal BMC Bioinformatics

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialty Biology

Date 2022 Sep 24

PMID 36153479

Authors

Sonja Zehetmayer

Martin Posch

Alexandra Graf

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: In RNA-sequencing studies a large number of hypothesis tests are performed to compare the differential expression of genes between several conditions. Filtering has been proposed to remove candidate genes with a low expression level which may not be relevant and have little or no chance of showing a difference between conditions. This step may reduce the multiple testing burden and increase power.

Results: We show in a simulation study that filtering can lead to some increase in power for RNA-sequencing data, too aggressive filtering, however, can lead to a decline. No uniformly optimal filter in terms of power exists. Depending on the scenario different filters may be optimal. We propose an adaptive filtering strategy which selects one of several filters to maximise the number of rejections. No additional adjustment for multiplicity has to be included, but a rule has to be considered if the number of rejections is too small.

Conclusions: For a large range of simulation scenarios, the adaptive filter maximises the power while the simulated False Discovery Rate is bounded by the pre-defined significance level. Using the adaptive filter, it is not necessary to pre-specify a single individual filtering method optimised for a specific scenario.

Citing Articles

Profiling hippocampal neuronal populations reveals unique gene expression mosaics reflective of connectivity-based degeneration in the Ts65Dn mouse model of Down syndrome and Alzheimer's disease.

Alldred M, Ibrahim K, Pidikiti H, Lee S, Heguy A, Chiosis G Front Mol Neurosci. 2025; 18:1546375.

PMID: 40078964 PMC: 11897496. DOI: 10.3389/fnmol.2025.1546375.

Analysis of microisolated frontal cortex excitatory layer III and V pyramidal neurons reveals a neurodegenerative phenotype in individuals with Down syndrome.

Alldred M, Pidikiti H, Ibrahim K, Lee S, Heguy A, Hoffman G Acta Neuropathol. 2024; 148(1):16.

PMID: 39105932 PMC: 11578391. DOI: 10.1007/s00401-024-02768-0.

Hippocampal CA1 Pyramidal Neurons Display Sublayer and Circuitry Dependent Degenerative Expression Profiles in Aged Female Down Syndrome Mice.

Alldred M, Pidikiti H, Ibrahim K, Lee S, Heguy A, Hoffman G J Alzheimers Dis. 2024; 100(s1):S341-S362.

PMID: 39031371 PMC: 11497160. DOI: 10.3233/JAD-240622.

Basal forebrain cholinergic neurons are vulnerable in a mouse model of Down syndrome and their molecular fingerprint is rescued by maternal choline supplementation.

Alldred M, Pidikiti H, Heguy A, Roussos P, Ginsberg S FASEB J. 2023; 37(6):e22944.

PMID: 37191946 PMC: 10292934. DOI: 10.1096/fj.202202111RR.

Gene filtering strategies for machine learning guided biomarker discovery using neonatal sepsis RNA-seq data.

Parkinson E, Liberatore F, Watkins W, Andrews R, Edkins S, Hibbert J Front Genet. 2023; 14:1158352.

PMID: 37113992 PMC: 10126415. DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2023.1158352.

References

van Iterson M, Boer J, Menezes R . Filtering, FDR and power. BMC Bioinformatics. 2010; 11:450. PMC: 2949886. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2105-11-450. View

Sultan M, Schulz M, Richard H, Magen A, Klingenhoff A, Scherf M . A global view of gene activity and alternative splicing by deep sequencing of the human transcriptome. Science. 2008; 321(5891):956-60. DOI: 10.1126/science.1160342. View

Bourgon R, Gentleman R, Huber W . Independent filtering increases detection power for high-throughput experiments. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010; 107(21):9546-51. PMC: 2906865. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0914005107. View

Love M, Huber W, Anders S . Moderated estimation of fold change and dispersion for RNA-seq data with DESeq2. Genome Biol. 2014; 15(12):550. PMC: 4302049. DOI: 10.1186/s13059-014-0550-8. View

Ritchie M, Phipson B, Wu D, Hu Y, Law C, Shi W . limma powers differential expression analyses for RNA-sequencing and microarray studies. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015; 43(7):e47. PMC: 4402510. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkv007. View

Zehetmayer S, Graf A, Posch M . Sample size reassessment for a two-stage design controlling the false discovery rate. Stat Appl Genet Mol Biol. 2015; 14(5):429-42. PMC: 4789494. DOI: 10.1515/sagmb-2014-0025. View

Korthauer K, Kimes P, Duvallet C, Reyes A, Subramanian A, Teng M . A practical guide to methods controlling false discoveries in computational biology. Genome Biol. 2019; 20(1):118. PMC: 6547503. DOI: 10.1186/s13059-019-1716-1. View

Rau A, Gallopin M, Celeux G, Jaffrezic F . Data-based filtering for replicated high-throughput transcriptome sequencing experiments. Bioinformatics. 2013; 29(17):2146-52. PMC: 3740625. DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btt350. View

Robinson M, McCarthy D, Smyth G . edgeR: a Bioconductor package for differential expression analysis of digital gene expression data. Bioinformatics. 2009; 26(1):139-40. PMC: 2796818. DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp616. View

10.

Graf A, Bauer P, Glimm E, Koenig F . Maximum type 1 error rate inflation in multiarmed clinical trials with adaptive interim sample size modifications. Biom J. 2014; 56(4):614-30. PMC: 4282114. DOI: 10.1002/bimj.201300153. View

11.

Zehetmayer S, Posch M . Post hoc power estimation in large-scale multiple testing problems. Bioinformatics. 2010; 26(8):1050-6. PMC: 3500624. DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btq085. View

12.

Li J, Tibshirani R . Finding consistent patterns: a nonparametric approach for identifying differential expression in RNA-Seq data. Stat Methods Med Res. 2011; 22(5):519-36. PMC: 4605138. DOI: 10.1177/0962280211428386. View

13.

Lin Y, Golovnina K, Chen Z, Lee H, Serrano Negron Y, Sultana H . Comparison of normalization and differential expression analyses using RNA-Seq data from 726 individual Drosophila melanogaster. BMC Genomics. 2016; 17:28. PMC: 4702322. DOI: 10.1186/s12864-015-2353-z. View

14.

Bottomly D, Walter N, Hunter J, Darakjian P, Kawane S, Buck K . Evaluating gene expression in C57BL/6J and DBA/2J mouse striatum using RNA-Seq and microarrays. PLoS One. 2011; 6(3):e17820. PMC: 3063777. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0017820. View

15.

Yuen B, Polzin J, Petersen J . Organ transcriptomes of the lucinid clam Loripes orbiculatus (Poli, 1791) provide insights into their specialised roles in the biology of a chemosymbiotic bivalve. BMC Genomics. 2019; 20(1):820. PMC: 6836662. DOI: 10.1186/s12864-019-6177-0. View

16.

Wu H, Wang C, Wu Z . PROPER: comprehensive power evaluation for differential expression using RNA-seq. Bioinformatics. 2014; 31(2):233-41. PMC: 4287952. DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu640. View

17.

Bauer P, Koenig F, Brannath W, Posch M . Selection and bias--two hostile brothers. Stat Med. 2009; 29(1):1-13. DOI: 10.1002/sim.3716. View

18.

Efron B, Tibshirani R . Empirical bayes methods and false discovery rates for microarrays. Genet Epidemiol. 2002; 23(1):70-86. DOI: 10.1002/gepi.1124. View

19.

Burden C, Qureshi S, Wilson S . Error estimates for the analysis of differential expression from RNA-seq count data. PeerJ. 2014; 2:e576. PMC: 4179614. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.576. View

20.

Benidt S, Nettleton D . SimSeq: a nonparametric approach to simulation of RNA-sequence datasets. Bioinformatics. 2015; 31(13):2131-40. PMC: 4481850. DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btv124. View