Email updates

Keep up to date with the latest news and content from Genome Biology and BioMed Central.

Open Access Highly Accessed Open Badges Method

Differential expression analysis for sequence count data

Simon Anders* and Wolfgang Huber

Genome Biology 2010, 11:R106  doi:10.1186/gb-2010-11-10-r106

PubMed Commons is an experimental system of commenting on PubMed abstracts, introduced in October 2013. Comments are displayed on the abstract page, but during the initial closed pilot, only registered users can read or post comments. Any researcher who is listed as an author of an article indexed by PubMed is entitled to participate in the pilot. If you would like to participate and need an invitation, please email, giving the PubMed ID of an article on which you are an author. For more information, see the PubMed Commons FAQ.


Wolfgang Huber   (2014-09-08 10:57)  EMBL

Dear Jean-Michel

apologies for the lack of citation, all I can say is that few papers manage to duly cite all relevant prior work, and that at the time of writing we must have assumed that in your case this was covered in one of the reviews or edgeR papers we cite.

Not being cited also happens to myself all the time.

Among the 30 or so journal and book citations we made in that paper, 6 were from the 1980s and 90s, and two from 1914 and 1953, respectively. And a main point of our approach was, of course, to model the overdispersion between biological replicates, as compared to Poisson- or multinomial sampling; an effect which I understand (Eq.(2) of your paper) seemed negligible to you in the era of EST sequencing and had only become urgent with RNA-Seq.

  Wolfgang Huber

Competing interests

I am an author of the paper commented here.


The amazing lack of proper referencing in Bioinformatics and Biostatistics

Jean-Michel Claverie   (2011-01-17 14:00)  CNRS

As an old timer, contributing to the field of computational biology since 1975 (the previous century! :-), I am amazed by the lack of proper reference to previous works by the current generation of bioinformaticians/biostatiticians. Most of them seem to believe that nothing existed before the Internet (1990), or even later. Take the example of this article: the authors apparently ignore that before the "RNA-Seq" era (a word that appeared in the context of the NGS approaches), we were sequencing "Expressed Sequences Tags" (ESTs) exactly for the same purpose, and with similar results. Of course, theoreticians developped the proper methods to analyze these data, methods that still apply today.
It is thus amazing that NONE of those widely used approaches are cited in this "modern work".
And this is not by lack of visibility. For instance, the approach that I developed with my colleague Stephane Audic in 1997 (The significance of digital gene expression profiles. Genome Res 1997 7:986-95. - PMID:9331369) has been cited 500 times and is still averaging more than 40 citations per year. But this is just one example, and many highly used methods are similarly ignored. I believe it is also the responsability of the reviewers, and of the editors, to ensure that what was considered an ethical behavior not so long ago, continues to be enforced in this booming field.

Competing interests

None declared (except that I am citing one of my
own article, for the sake of demonstration).


Post a comment