This is a test version of Biostars. For the public version, visit https://www.biostars.org.
Doubts about RNA-seq Cufflinks

Why people continue using Tophat if Hisat is available or is Tophat more efficient? ( I read a recent paper using Tophat).

And about cufflinks pipeline, if I do Cufflinks-cuffmerge and Cuffdiff I am doing a double normalization?

Cufflinks use classic-fpkm and Cufdiff a geometric normalization

What do you think of using cufflinks or R package ( Edge R and other) to do DE expression?

Greetings

rna-seq
• 2,956 views • link
updated by Devon Ryan Devon Ryan • written by vm.higareda • vm.higareda

There are quite a few articles where researchers have compared various tools for identifying deferentially expressed genes in RNA-Seq, and they reached to conclusion that there is no clear consensus about following a single approach. However, they have suggested few factors that might make one approach appear better than the rests based upon experiment. These include number of replicates and heterogeneity of samples. One such article is: Comparison of software packages for detecting differential expression in RNA-seq studies.

• 0 views • link
written by Persistent LABS Persistent LABS

1 answer

People continue to use any old tools because (A) they've been using it previously, (B) they saw a paper where someone used it, (C) they googled around and saw a recommendation for it, or (D) they got some training when said tools was state of the art.

The only real problem with tophat is that it's really slow. Aside from that it works fine most of the time.

Regarding cufflinks, unless you need to find novel isoforms/genes then don't use it. If you do need novel isoforms/genes, then use stringTie rather than cufflinks.

Regarding "double normalization", that doesn't happen, since cuffdiff has to recalculate all of the expression metrics anyway.

• 0 views • link
written by Devon Ryan Devon Ryan

Log in to answer this question.

More posts like this