Yeah, I remember you once told me that. But when I read these two papers, it seems that it's essential to use within lane normalizations for GC content.
https://bmcbioinformatics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2105-12-480
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4917940/
The problem is that now that I have finished my analyses and am about to present my results, I've realized that GC content bias should normalized. I don't have enough time to normalize the data for GC content if it's possible to normalize them, and repeat the analysis. That's why I asked this question here to ask for some references to mention as a reason to why I haven't accounted for the GC content bias.
DESeq2 accounts for this. I assume other packages may as well.
I always assumed they don't because you're only comparing genes against each other, with the same GC content... I don't think those tools take GC content into account by default. They're also agnostic about those features, they only have counts as input...
Yeah, I thought the same as you did but when I read that paper, I realized that it's essential to adjust for the GC content bias. Could anyone show me some papers where they suggest it's not essential to account for GC content bias please?
There haven't been GC-bias issues for the last ~5 years. You're not going to find a paper about that, no one would bother writing it.
Thank you. Can that package control the GC content bias when you only have the table of read counts?