Unconfigured Ad

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • BGould
    Member
    • May 2010
    • 14

    Should one combine normalization methods in RNA-seq?

    Does anyone know if RPKM normalization and quantile normalization of RNA-seq read counts can or should be combined?

    For normalization of paired-end reads in RNA-seq, is it accurate to normalize the raw read counts using the quantile method, then following that calculate the RPKM value for each transcript using the quantile normalized values?

    It seems that RPKM normalization using the total millions of mapped reads is somewhat redundant with an initial quantile normalization of read counts. Are these two methods mutually exclusive or should they be combined? Any recommendations?

    thanks!
  • Macspider
    Member
    • Feb 2016
    • 36

    #2
    It's a bit late for this answer but maybe future users will benefit from that:
    When you use FPKM / RPKM as a measure unit you already have a normalized unit, which accounts for the gene length. However, when you have many samples sometimes you have different sequencing depths and thus different expression values that are the same thing but at two different depths. To account for that, using a global scaling or a full quantile normalization will help. In fact, when doing it you will end up with all the different "lanes" having the same statistical properties and thus remove the problem of the sequencing depth.

    So, in conclusion, use RPKM/FPKM and then do a full quantile on all the samples, it works and is a good practice.

    Comment

    • dpryan
      Devon Ryan
      • Jul 2011
      • 3478

      #3
      A better solution would be to never use RPKM/FPKM, since it tends to kill your statistical power, which is related to the raw counts and gets normalized away by the RPKM transformation.

      Comment

      Latest Articles

      Collapse

      • GATTACAT
        Reply to Nine Things a Sample Prep Scientist Thinks About Before Sequencing
        by GATTACAT
        Love this - good data definitely starts from good input, and poor input can only give relatively poor data. I particularly like the mention of Nanodrop/absorbance based methods for quantification. It's such a toss up if you'll get an accurate reading or what amounts to a randomly generated number, and a lot of library/sequencing related issues can be traced back to poor quant.
        07-01-2026, 11:43 AM
      • SEQadmin2
        Nine Things a Sample Prep Scientist Thinks About Before Sequencing
        by SEQadmin2


        I’m not a sequencing expert. I’m a purification scientist who uses NGS to evaluate workflows my group develops. With this perspective, we think about the sample first and the NGS workflow second. The sequencer is an exceptionally honest reporter, but it can only report on what you give it, so whether you get clean, interpretable data from an NGS workflow is largely determined before you begin.

        Here are nine questions we think about, in roughly the order they matter, before...
        06-18-2026, 07:11 AM

      ad_right_rmr

      Collapse

      News

      Collapse

      Topics Statistics Last Post
      Started by SEQadmin2, Today, 11:05 AM
      0 responses
      6 views
      0 reactions
      Last Post SEQadmin2  
      Started by SEQadmin2, 07-02-2026, 11:08 AM
      0 responses
      28 views
      0 reactions
      Last Post SEQadmin2  
      Started by SEQadmin2, 06-30-2026, 05:37 AM
      0 responses
      25 views
      0 reactions
      Last Post SEQadmin2  
      Started by SEQadmin2, 06-26-2026, 11:10 AM
      0 responses
      25 views
      0 reactions
      Last Post SEQadmin2  
      Working...