4.2 Article

LimoRhyde: A Flexible Approach for Differential Analysis of Rhythmic Transcriptome Data

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL RHYTHMS
卷 34, 期 1, 页码 5-18

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0748730418813785

关键词

differential expression; transcriptome data; cosinor; circadian rhythms; biological oscillations

资金

  1. NIH [R35 GM124685]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Unraveling the effects of genetic or environmental perturbations on biological rhythms requires detecting changes in rhythmicity across multiple conditions. Although methods to detect rhythmicity in genome-scale data are well established, methods to detect changes in rhythmicity or changes in average expression between experimental conditions are often ad hoc and statistically unreliable. Here we present LimoRhyde (linear models for rhythmicity, design), a flexible approach for analyzing transcriptome data from circadian systems. Borrowing from cosinor regression, LimoRhyde decomposes circadian or zeitgeber time into multiple components to fit a linear model to the expression of each gene. The linear model can accommodate any number of additional experimental variables, whether discrete or continuous, making it straightforward to detect differential rhythmicity and differential expression using state-of-the-art methods for analyzing microarray and RNA-seq data. In this approach, differential rhythmicity corresponds to a statistical interaction between an experimental variable and circadian time, whereas differential expression corresponds to the main effect of an experimental variable while accounting for circadian time. To validate LimoRhyde's performance, we applied it to simulated data. To demonstrate LimoRhyde's versatility, we applied it to murine and human circadian transcriptome datasets acquired under various experimental designs. Our results show how LimoRhyde systematizes the analysis of such data, and suggest that LimoRhyde could prove valuable for assessing how circadian systems respond to perturbations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据