4.2 Article

TimeTrial: An Interactive Application for Optimizing the Design and Analysis of Transcriptomic Times-Series Data in Circadian Biology Research

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL RHYTHMS
卷 35, 期 5, 页码 439-451

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0748730420934672

关键词

circadian biology; computational biology; biostatistics; experimental design guidelines; rhythm detection; benchmarking; gene expression analysis

资金

  1. NSF-Simons Center for Quantitative Biology at Northwestern University, an NSF-Simons MathBioSys Research Center
  2. Simons Foundation/SFARI [597491-RWC]
  3. National Science Foundation [1764421]
  4. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien
  5. Division Of Mathematical Sciences [1764421] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The circadian rhythm drives the oscillatory expression of thousands of genes across all tissues, coordinating physiological processes. The effect of this rhythm on health has generated increasing interest in discovering genes under circadian control by searching for periodic patterns in transcriptomic time-series experiments. While algorithms for detecting cycling transcripts have advanced, there remains little guidance quantifying the effect of experimental design and analysis choices on cycling detection accuracy. We present TimeTrial, a user-friendly benchmarking framework using both real and synthetic data to investigate cycle detection algorithms' performance and improve circadian experimental design. Results show that the optimal choice of analysis method depends on the sampling scheme, noise level, and shape of the waveform of interest and provides guidance on the impact of sampling frequency and duration on cycling detection accuracy. The TimeTrial software is freely available for download and may also be accessed through a web interface. By supplying a tool to vary and optimize experimental design considerations, TimeTrial will enhance circadian transcriptomics studies.

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