Benchmarking Differential Expression Tools: A Researcher's Guide to Accuracy, Power, and Workflow Optimization

Abstract

Differential expression (DE) analysis is a cornerstone of transcriptomics, crucial for biomarker discovery and understanding disease mechanisms. This article provides a comprehensive evaluation of DE tool performance across bulk, single-cell, and proteomics data. We explore foundational statistical models, address methodological challenges like multi-layer variability and data sparsity, and present optimization strategies for robust, reproducible analysis. Drawing on extensive benchmark studies, we compare the sensitivity, false discovery rate control, and computational efficiency of leading methods. This guide is tailored for researchers and drug development professionals seeking to navigate the complex landscape of DE analysis and implement high-performing, reliable workflows.

The Statistical Foundations of Differential Expression Analysis: From Bulk RNA-seq to Single-Cell and Proteomics

Differential expression (DE) analysis is a cornerstone of genomic research, enabling the identification of genes regulated across different biological conditions. However, the reliability of its results is continually challenged by inherent technical and biological complexities. This guide objectively compares the performance of modern DE tools in addressing three core challenges: overdispersion in count data, prevalent drop-out events in single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq), and multi-layer biological variability. Supporting experimental data and detailed methodologies provide a framework for selecting robust analytical tools.

Core Challenges in Differential Expression Analysis

The transition from bulk to single-cell transcriptomics has exacerbated specific statistical challenges that can confound traditional DE analysis methods.

• Overdispersion: In bulk RNA-seq data, the variance in gene expression counts between biological replicates often exceeds the mean, a phenomenon known as overdispersion. This violates the assumption of a Poisson distribution. Methods like DESeq2 and edgeR address this by employing negative binomial models that incorporate a dispersion parameter, which shrinks gene-wise dispersion estimates towards a trended mean for stable inference [1].
• Drop-out Events: A defining characteristic of scRNA-seq data is the "drop-out" problem, where a gene is observed at a low or moderate expression level in one cell but is undetected in another cell of the same type. These zero counts are a mixture of technical artifacts (failure to detect a truly expressed gene) and biological absence. Traditional bulk methods often misinterpret these zeros, leading to a loss of power. While some scRNA-seq-specific DE methods have been developed, a recent benchmark suggests they do not consistently outperform bulk-oriented methods, which treat this variability as noise [2].
• Multi-layer Variability: Single-cell technologies reveal that cell-to-cell heterogeneity is not just noise but a critical dimension of biology. The "variation-is-function" hypothesis posits that this variability is central to cellular identity and function [2]. Mean-centric DE analysis, which focuses on differences in average expression between conditions, overlooks the rich information encoded in how expression variability changes. A shift towards differential variability (DV) analysis is emerging, with frameworks like spline-DV designed to identify genes with significant changes in expression variance between conditions, independent of the mean [2].

Performance Comparison of DE Analysis Methods

The table below synthesizes findings from recent benchmarks to compare how different methodologies handle core analytical challenges.

Table 1: Benchmarking Differential Expression and Variability Analysis Methods

Method Name	Core Methodology	Handling of Overdispersion	Handling of Drop-out Events	Analysis of Multi-layer Variability	Key Findings from Benchmarks
DESeq2 [1]	Negative binomial model	Shrinks gene-wise dispersion estimates towards a trended mean.	Treats as part of technical noise; not specifically designed for scRNA-seq drop-outs.	Mean-centric; focuses on differences in average expression.	A robust, widely adopted method for bulk RNA-seq; performance can be impacted by high drop-out rates in scRNA-seq data [1] [2].
edgeR [1]	Negative binomial model	Uses a weighted conditional likelihood to estimate dispersion.	Similar to DESeq2; treats zeros as technical noise in bulk analysis.	Mean-centric; focuses on differences in average expression.	Consistently performs well in bulk RNA-seq benchmarks; often used in scRNA-seq via pseudobulk approaches [1] [2].
voom-limma [1]	Linear modeling of log-CPM	Models the mean-variance relationship to assign observation-level weights.	Preprocessing and weighting can mitigate some effects, but not specifically for drop-outs.	Mean-centric; focuses on differences in average expression.	Effective for bulk RNA-seq, particularly with complex experimental designs [1].
dearseq [1]	Robust statistical framework	Handles complex designs and heteroscedasticity (unequal variances).	Designed to be robust against various data anomalies.	Mean-centric; focuses on differences in average expression.	Performs well, especially with small sample sizes; identified 191 DEGs in a real vaccine dataset benchmark [1].
Pseudobulk [2]	Aggregating single-cell counts	Uses bulk methods (e.g., DESeq2, edgeR) on aggregated data.	Aggregation reduces the impact of individual drop-out events.	Obscures cellular variability; ignores cell-to-cell heterogeneity by design.	May recover bulk-like DE signals but misses the primary advantage of single-cell resolution, potentially obscuring key biology [2].
spline-DV [2]	Non-parametric differential variability	Models variability directly using coefficient of variation (CV) and dropout rate.	Explicitly incorporates dropout rate as a key metric in its 3D model.	Variability-centric; specifically designed to identify genes with significant changes in expression variance.	Successfully identified ground-truth DV genes in simulations; case studies revealed functionally relevant genes in obesity and cancer [2].

Experimental Protocols for Benchmarking

To ensure fair and reproducible comparisons, benchmarks must employ rigorous, standardized pipelines. The following protocols are commonly used in method evaluation studies.

A Standard RNA-seq Preprocessing Pipeline

A robust preprocessing phase is critical for reliable downstream DE analysis. A typical pipeline involves the following steps and tools [1]:

• Quality Control: Raw sequencing reads are assessed using FastQC to identify potential sequencing artifacts and biases.
• Trimming and Cleaning: Trimmomatic is employed to trim low-quality bases and adapter sequences, producing high-quality reads.
• Read Quantification: Transcript abundance is estimated using highly efficient tools like Salmon, which utilizes quasi-alignment-based methods to estimate gene-level expression.
• Normalization: To account for sequencing depth and compositional biases, the Trimmed Mean of M-values (TMM) normalization method, implemented in edgeR, is widely used.
• Batch Effect Correction: Proper identification and correction of batch effects, a common source of technical variation, is essential. This is typically handled using specialized statistical approaches before DEA.

Benchmarking with Real and Synthetic Data

Performance evaluations often leverage a combination of real and synthetic datasets to assess different aspects of a method's capabilities [1] [2].

• Real Datasets: Benchmarks use real data (e.g., from a Yellow Fever vaccine study) to evaluate performance under realistic biological conditions and complex experimental designs [1].
• Synthetic Datasets: Data is simulated with controlled modifications (e.g., known differentially expressed or differentially variable genes) to create a "ground truth." This allows for rigorous testing of a method's accuracy, true positive rate, and robustness to challenges like sparse expression patterns and varying dropout rates [2].

The SG-NEx Resource for Long-Read Benchmarking

The Singapore Nanopore Expression (SG-NEx) project provides a comprehensive benchmark dataset for evaluating transcript-level analysis. This resource includes [3]:

• Multiple Protocols: Seven human cell lines sequenced with multiple replicates using short-read RNA-seq, Nanopore long-read direct RNA, direct cDNA, PCR-amplified cDNA sequencing, and PacBio IsoSeq.
• Spike-In Controls: Inclusion of six different spike-in RNA variants with known concentrations (Sequin, ERCC, SIRVs) to enable precise accuracy measurements.
• Application: This dataset is invaluable for benchmarking computational methods for differential expression, transcript discovery, and quantification, particularly for long-read RNA-seq data.

Visualizing Analytical Workflows and Concepts

The following diagrams illustrate the logical workflow of a standard DE analysis and the conceptual foundation of differential variability analysis.

DE Analysis Workflow

The Variation-is-Function Concept

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents & Materials

The table below details key reagents and computational tools essential for conducting and benchmarking differential expression analyses.

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for DE Analysis

Item / Reagent	Function in DE Analysis
Spike-in RNA Controls (ERCC, Sequin, SIRVs) [3]	Synthetic RNA sequences spiked into samples at known concentrations. They serve as an external standard for evaluating the accuracy, sensitivity, and technical bias of RNA-seq protocols and DE tools.
Trimmomatic [1]	A software tool used to remove adapter sequences and trim low-quality bases from raw sequencing reads, ensuring clean input data for alignment and quantification.
Salmon [1]	A computationally efficient tool for quantifying transcript abundance from RNA-seq data. It uses a quasi-mapping approach, enabling fast and accurate gene-level expression estimates.
FastQC [1]	A quality control tool that provides an overview of sequencing data quality, highlighting potential problems like sequence adapter contamination or low-quality bases.
SG-NEx Data Resource [3]	A comprehensive community resource of long-read RNA-seq data from multiple platforms and cell lines. It is invaluable for benchmarking DE and isoform analysis methods.
spline-DV Algorithm [2]	A statistical framework for identifying differentially variable (DV) genes from scRNA-seq data, moving beyond mean expression to capture changes in cell-to-cell heterogeneity.

A Guide to Differential Expression Analysis

In the field of transcriptomics, differential expression (DE) analysis is a cornerstone for identifying genes that change across different biological conditions. The choice of statistical model is critical, as it directly impacts the reliability and replicability of results. This guide objectively compares the performance of three dominant approaches: the Negative Binomial model, the Poisson model, and Non-Parametric methods, framing the evaluation within broader research on the performance of differential expression tools.

---

Model Comparison at a Glance

The table below summarizes the core characteristics, strengths, and weaknesses of the three main statistical models used in differential expression analysis.

Model	Core Principle & Assumptions	Typical Use Case & Performance	Key Strengths	Major Limitations
Negative Binomial	Generalized Linear Model (GLM); assumes variance > mean (overdispersion) [4] [5].	Default for many modern tools (e.g., DESeq2, edgeR); powerful for RNA-seq data where overdispersion is common [1].	Robustly handles overdispersion; generally higher power for eQTL mapping [6]; provides a more appropriate fit than Poisson when overdispersion is present [7] [5].	Parameter estimation (dispersion) can be challenging and requires specialized methods for unbiased results [6].
Poisson	GLM; assumes variance = mean (equidispersion) [4] [5].	Less common for bulk RNA-seq; can be a principled choice for data that follows its strict assumptions, such as certain PET AIF data [4].	Principled for count data with no overdispersion; simpler model [4].	Assumption of equidispersion is often violated in RNA-seq data, leading to unreliable results and poor replicability [8] [9].
Non-Parametric	Data-driven; no assumed distribution for read counts [8].	Useful when distributional assumptions are violated or for robust control of False Discovery Rate (FDR) [8].	Robust to violations of distributional assumptions; effective FDR control [8].	May have less power to detect true differentially expressed genes compared to well-specified parametric models [8].

---

Experimental Protocols & Performance

Benchmarking Differential Expression Tools

Independent research has evaluated the performance of various DE tools, which are often built upon the models discussed.

• Protocol: A robust pipeline was used, starting with quality control of raw sequencing reads (FastQC), trimming of low-quality bases and adapters (Trimmomatic), and quantification of transcript abundance (Salmon). Normalization was performed using the Trimmed Mean of M-values (TMM) method. Differential analysis was then conducted using several popular methods, including voom-limma, edgeR (Negative Binomial), and DESeq2 (Negative Binomial) [1].
• Findings: This benchmark highlights that the choice of differential analysis method, including the underlying statistical model, has a direct impact on the list of identified Differentially Expressed Genes (DEGs). The performance and conclusions can vary depending on the specific dataset and experimental design [1].

The Critical Issue of Replicability

A major concern in high-throughput biology is whether results from one study can be replicated in another. For RNA-seq studies, replicability is highly dependent on statistical power, which is influenced by cohort size and the choice of model.

• Protocol: A 2025 study investigated replicability by performing 18,000 subsampled RNA-seq experiments. From 18 large real datasets, small cohorts of size N were randomly sampled, and differential expression and enrichment analyses were performed for each subsample. The overlap of significant genes and gene sets between these subsampled experiments was then measured [9].
• Findings: Experiments with small cohort sizes (e.g., fewer than five replicates) produce results that are unlikely to replicate well [9]. This low replicability is a problem of both sensitivity (recall) and precision. While underpowered experiments inevitably find only a small fraction of the true DEGs (low recall), they can still be precise (low false positive rate) depending on the dataset characteristics [9]. This underscores that no model can compensate for an fundamentally underpowered study design.

Comparing Poisson and Negative Binomial Models

Since the Poisson model is nested within the Negative Binomial model, a likelihood ratio test can formally determine which provides a better fit for a given dataset.

• Protocol: The test compares two models fitted to the same data. The null hypothesis is that the Poisson model is sufficient (i.e., the dispersion parameter in the Negative Binomial model is zero). The test statistic is twice the difference in the log-likelihoods of the two models: 2 * (logLik(NB_model) - logLik(Poisson_model)). This statistic follows a chi-squared distribution with degrees of freedom (df) equal to the difference in the number of parameters (df=1, for the extra dispersion parameter) [10].
• Interpretation: A significant p-value (e.g., < 0.05) provides statistical evidence that the Negative Binomial model, which accounts for overdispersion, is a significantly better fit for the data than the Poisson model [7] [10].

---

The Scientist's Toolkit

This table details key reagents, software, and methodological solutions essential for conducting differential expression analysis.

Tool / Reagent	Function / Purpose	Relevant Model(s)
DESeq2 / edgeR	Software packages implementing the Negative Binomial model for DE analysis.	Negative Binomial
LFCseq / NOISeq	Software packages implementing non-parametric methods for DE analysis.	Non-Parametric
Trimmed Mean of M-values (TMM)	A normalization method to account for compositional differences and sequencing depth across samples.	All Models [1]
Salmon	A tool for fast and accurate quantification of transcript abundances from raw RNA-seq reads.	All Models [1]
Likelihood Ratio Test (LRT)	A statistical test to formally compare the goodness-of-fit between Poisson and Negative Binomial models.	Poisson, Negative Binomial [10]
Cox-Reid Adjusted Profile Likelihood	A method implemented in tools like quasar for unbiased estimation of the Negative Binomial dispersion parameter, improving Type 1 error control.	Negative Binomial [6]

---

• Negative Binomial is the Dominant Model: For most bulk RNA-seq datasets, which exhibit overdispersion, the Negative Binomial model is the most appropriate and powerful choice [5] [6].
• Validate Poisson Assumptions with Care: The standard Poisson model is rarely suitable for RNA-seq data due to its strict equidispersion assumption. Its use can lead to inflated false positives and poor replicability [8] [9].
• Non-Parametric Methods Offer Robustness: When distributional assumptions are severely violated or when robust FDR control is the priority, non-parametric methods provide a valuable alternative, though sometimes at the cost of some statistical power [8].
• Power and Replicability Depend on Design: Regardless of the model, underpowered studies with few biological replicates will struggle to produce replicable results. Adequate sample size is a foundational requirement [9].

Single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) has fundamentally transformed biological research by enabling the characterization of complex cellular populations at unprecedented resolution. Unlike bulk RNA-seq, which measures average gene expression across thousands of cells, scRNA-seq reveals the transcriptional landscape of individual cells, providing crucial insights into cellular heterogeneity, rare cell populations, and developmental trajectories [11]. However, this revolutionary technology presents two fundamental analytical challenges that complicate interpretation: extreme data sparsity and complex cellular heterogeneity.

The high-dimensional nature of scRNA-seq data is characterized by substantial technical noise and frequent "dropout events" (where genes are undetected in some cells despite being expressed), leading to expression matrices with typically 80-95% zero values [12] [13]. Simultaneously, the biological complexity researchers seek to understand—the very cellular heterogeneity that makes single-cell approaches valuable—creates analytical obstacles through continuous cellular states and subtle differences between cell types [14]. This comparison guide evaluates computational strategies designed to overcome these challenges, providing objective performance assessments based on recent large-scale benchmarking studies to inform tool selection in research and drug development.

Benchmarking Methodologies: How Tools Are Evaluated

Robust evaluation of scRNA-seq analytical methods requires carefully designed benchmarking frameworks that simulate realistic biological scenarios while maintaining known ground truth. The most comprehensive benchmarks employ multiple complementary approaches:

Simulation Frameworks

Model-based simulations generate scRNA-seq count data using statistical models like the negative binomial (NB) or zero-inflated negative binomial (ZINB) distributions to replicate the over-dispersion and dropout characteristics of real data [15] [13]. The Splatter framework implements a gamma-Poisson hierarchical model to simulate mean expression, biological noise, and differential expression between pre-defined cell groups [13]. Benchmarking studies systematically vary parameters including sequencing depth (ranging from depth-4 to depth-77 average nonzero counts), batch effect strength, proportion of differentially expressed genes (typically 10-20%), and effect sizes to assess method performance across diverse experimental conditions [15] [16].

Model-Free Validation

Model-free approaches utilize real scRNA-seq datasets with established cellular identities, employing subsampling strategies or using well-annotated datasets from resources like scUnified—a standardized collection of 13 datasets across human and mouse tissues with uniform quality control and preprocessing [12]. These validation frameworks measure a method's ability to recover known biological truths, such as established cell type markers or experimentally validated cellular hierarchies.

Performance Metrics

Evaluation encompasses multiple performance dimensions:

• Accuracy metrics: F-scores (particularly F₀.₅ prioritizing precision), area under precision-recall curve (AUPR), and partial AUPR for recall rates <0.5
• False discovery control: Actual versus nominal false discovery rates (FDR)
• Replicability: Consistency of results across subsampled cohorts
• Scalability: Computational efficiency with increasing cell numbers
• Biological relevance: Prioritization of known disease genes and prognostic signatures [15] [9]

The following diagram illustrates the comprehensive benchmarking workflow that integrates these evaluation strategies:

Comparative Performance Analysis of Computational Methods

Differential Expression Analysis Under Sparsity

Large-scale benchmarking of 46 differential expression (DE) workflows reveals how method performance varies with data characteristics, particularly sparsity levels and batch effects [15]. The optimal choice of DE method depends strongly on sequencing depth and the magnitude of technical artifacts:

Table 1: Performance of Differential Expression Methods Across Data Conditions

Method Category	Representative Methods	High Sequencing Depth	Low Sequencing Depth	Large Batch Effects	Small Batch Effects
Covariate Models	MASTCov, ZWedgeR_Cov	Excellent	Good	Best Performance	Good
Bulk RNA-seq Adapted	limmatrend, DESeq2	Excellent	Best Performance	Good	Good
Single-cell Specific	MAST, scREHurdle	Good	Good	Good	Good
Non-parametric	Wilcoxon test	Moderate	Best Performance	Poor	Moderate
Meta-analysis	FEM, REM	Moderate	Good	Moderate	Moderate

For datasets with substantial batch effects, covariate modeling approaches (which include batch as a covariate rather than pre-correcting data) consistently outperform methods that use batch-corrected data [15]. At low sequencing depths (average nonzero counts of 4-10), methods relying on zero-inflation models often deteriorate in performance, whereas limmatrend, Wilcoxon test, and fixed effects models maintain robust performance [15].

Clustering Methods for Resolving Cellular Heterogeneity

Clustering analysis forms the foundation for identifying cell types and states within heterogeneous tissues. Recent benchmarking studies evaluating 13 state-of-the-art clustering methods reveal several critical patterns:

Table 2: Performance of Clustering Approaches for Cellular Heterogeneity

Method Category	Representative Methods	Handling Sparsity	Rare Cell Type Detection	Scalability	Stability
Graph-based Traditional	Seurat, Phenograph	Moderate	Moderate	Good	Good
Deep Learning Autoencoders	scDeepCluster, DCA	Good	Moderate	Moderate	Good
Graph Neural Networks	scGraphformer, scSGC	Excellent	Excellent	Good	Excellent
Multi-kernel Spectral	SIMLR, MPSSC	Good	Good	Poor	Moderate

Graph neural network (GNN) approaches represent the most promising direction for addressing both sparsity and heterogeneity. The recently developed scGraphformer leverages transformer-based GNNs to dynamically learn cell-cell relational networks directly from scRNA-seq data without relying on predefined graphs, outperforming seven state-of-the-art methods in cell type identification across 20 diverse datasets [14]. Similarly, scSGC (Soft Graph Clustering) introduces non-binary edge weights to capture continuous similarities between cells, overcoming limitations of traditional hard graph constructions and demonstrating superior performance across ten benchmarking datasets compared to 11 existing methods [17].

Advanced Computational Frameworks

Integration of Gene Functional Information

The scMUG pipeline represents a novel approach that integrates gene functional module information to enhance scRNA-seq clustering analysis [11]. By incorporating biological prior knowledge about gene interactions and functional associations, scMUG moves beyond purely statistical approaches to clustering. The pipeline introduces a similarity measure that combines local density and global distribution in the latent cell representation space, presenting comparable or better clustering performance than other state-of-the-art methods while providing deeper insights into functional relationships between gene expression patterns and cellular heterogeneity [11].

Addressing Replicability Challenges in scRNA-seq Studies

Replicability remains a significant concern in single-cell research, particularly given the financial and practical constraints that often limit cohort sizes. A recent analysis of 18,000 subsampled RNA-seq experiments found that results from underpowered studies (fewer than five replicates per condition) show poor replicability, though this doesn't necessarily imply low precision [9]. The study provides a bootstrapping procedure to estimate expected replicability and recommends at least six biological replicates per condition for robust DEG detection, increasing to ten or more replicates when seeking to identify the majority of differentially expressed genes [9].

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Single-Cell Analysis

Resource Name	Type	Primary Function	Application Context
scUnified	Standardized Data Resource	Provides 13 uniformly processed scRNA-seq datasets	Method benchmarking, cross-dataset validation [12]
SimBench	Evaluation Framework	Comprehensive benchmarking of 12 simulation methods	Simulation method selection, method development [13]
ZINB-WaVE	Statistical Method	Observation weights for zero-inflated data	Enabling bulk tools for single-cell data [15]
scGraphformer	Analysis Tool	Transformer-based cell type identification	Handling complex heterogeneity, large-scale data [14]
scSGC	Analysis Tool	Soft graph clustering with non-binary edges	Overcoming hard graph limitations in GNNs [17]
Splatter	Simulation Tool	Model-based scRNA-seq data simulation	Method validation, power analysis [13] [16]

Based on comprehensive benchmarking evidence, we recommend:

• For differential expression analysis: Employ covariate models (MAST_Cov) when substantial batch effects are present and limmatrend or fixed effects models for very low-depth data. Avoid using batch-corrected data for DE analysis when data is sparse [15].

• For clustering and cell type identification: Implement graph neural network approaches (scGraphformer, scSGC) for large, complex datasets with subtle cellular heterogeneity, as these methods consistently outperform traditional approaches while better handling data sparsity [14] [17].

• For experimental design: Include sufficient biological replicates (at least 6, preferably 10+ per condition) to ensure replicable findings, and utilize bootstrapping procedures to estimate expected performance given cohort size constraints [9].

• For method validation: Leverage standardized resources like scUnified and multiple simulation approaches from SimBench to ensure comprehensive evaluation across diverse data characteristics [12] [13].

The single-cell revolution continues to advance through sophisticated computational methods that directly address the fundamental challenges of data sparsity and cellular heterogeneity. By selecting approaches validated through rigorous benchmarking and appropriate for specific data characteristics, researchers can maximize biological insights while maintaining statistical rigor in their single-cell studies.

Mass spectrometry-based proteomics has evolved from a qualitative, descriptive discipline into a high-throughput quantitative field, playing an increasingly crucial role in biological interpretation of protein functions and biomarker discovery [18]. This transition has been accelerated by significant advances in instrumentation capable of generating enormous volumes of data, which has in turn emphasized that computational data analysis now represents the primary bottleneck for proteomics development [18]. The complexity of proteomics data analysis stems from multiple challenges, including measurement noise, missing values, and the hierarchical structure of bottom-up MS data where protein abundances must be inferred from peptide-level information [19]. This article examines the workflow parallels and unique computational challenges in mass spectrometry-based proteomics, with particular focus on evaluating the performance of differential expression analysis tools essential for drug development and clinical research.

Core Computational Workflows in Mass Spectrometry Proteomics

Foundational Principles of Quantitative Proteomics

Mass spectrometry-based protein quantitation relies on the fundamental linearity of MS ion signal versus molecular concentration, initially confirmed for protein abundances by Chelius and Bondarenko in 2002 [18]. Proteomics quantification strategies fall into two primary categories: stable isotope labeling methods (e.g., SILAC, TMT, iTRAQ) that introduce mass tags into proteins or peptides, and label-free approaches that correlate ion current signals or spectral counts directly with protein quantity [18]. The effectiveness of these approaches depends heavily on appropriate software tools for data processing, whose development has lagged behind instrumental advances [18].

A typical LC-MS quantitative proteomics workflow involves multiple coordinated steps: proteins are first digested to peptides by a site-specific enzymatic protease (typically trypsin), followed by liquid chromatography separation, conversion to gas phase ions, and analysis by MS. The mass spectrometer produces high-resolution MS spectra and automatically selects peptides for fragmentation and further analysis by tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS). The resulting MS/MS spectra are compared to theoretical fragmentation spectra generated from protein sequence databases or spectral libraries to retrieve corresponding peptide sequences [18].

Generalized Proteomics Data Analysis Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the core computational workflow for differential expression analysis in proteomics, highlighting the multiple decision points where tool selection significantly impacts results:

Figure 1: Generalized computational workflow for differential expression analysis in proteomics, highlighting the five critical steps where tool selection significantly impacts results.

As illustrated, differential expression analysis workflows encompass five critical steps: (1) raw data quantification, (2) expression matrix construction, (3) matrix normalization, (4) missing value imputation (MVI), and (5) differential expression analysis using statistical methods. At each step, researchers must select from multiple available tools and methods, creating a combinatorial challenge for workflow optimization [20].

Comparative Analysis of Proteomics Data Analysis Tools

The proteomics field has developed numerous specialized software tools for data analysis, each with distinct strengths, limitations, and optimal use cases. The table below summarizes key characteristics of major proteomics data analysis platforms:

Table 1: Comprehensive comparison of primary proteomics data analysis software tools

Software Tool	License Model	Primary Strengths	Optimal Use Cases	Quantification Methods Supported	Usability Considerations
MaxQuant [21]	Free, open-source	Comprehensive pipeline; integrated Perseus for statistics; Match-between-runs	Discovery proteomics; Academic labs	LFQ, SILAC, dimethyl, TMT/iTRAQ, DIA (via MaxDIA)	Windows/Linux; GUI and command-line
FragPipe/MSFragger [21]	Free, open-source	Ultra-fast search engine; Open modification searches; High-throughput data	Large datasets; Custom modifications; High-throughput workflows	TMT/iTRAQ, LFQ via IonQuant, DIA via MSFragger-DIA	Windows/Linux; Functional GUI; Less polished interface
DIA-NN [22] [21]	Free, open-source	High-performance DIA; Neural networks; Library-free analysis; Scalability	DIA proteomics; Large cohort studies; Limited library availability	DIA (specialized)	CLI with basic GUI; Minimal visualization
Spectronaut [22] [21]	Commercial	Gold standard DIA; Machine learning; Extensive visualization; Vendor-agnostic	Precision DIA projects; Industrial labs; Regulatory environments	DIA (specialized)	Professional GUI; Steep licensing cost
Proteome Discoverer [21]	Commercial	Thermo instrument integration; Multiple search engines; User-friendly workflow	Core facilities; Thermo Orbitrap users; Targeted applications	LFQ, SILAC, TMT/iTRAQ, DIA (v3.0+)	Windows GUI; Node-based workflow
Skyline [21]	Free, open-source	Excellent visualization; Targeted analysis; Method development	Targeted proteomics; MRM/PRM; DIA quantification; Assay development	SRM, MRM, PRM, DIA, DDA	Clean GUI; Extensive documentation

Performance Benchmarking of Differential Expression Analysis Tools

Recent large-scale benchmarking studies have systematically evaluated the performance of various proteomics workflows. One comprehensive analysis tested 34,576 combinatoric workflow variations on 24 gold-standard spike-in datasets to identify optimal strategies for differential expression analysis [20]. The performance evaluation revealed that optimal workflows are highly dependent on the specific quantification setting (e.g., label-free DDA, DIA, or TMT-labeled data).

The following table summarizes key performance characteristics identified through systematic benchmarking:

Table 2: Performance characteristics of proteomics data analysis tools based on benchmark studies

Software Tool	Identification Performance	Quantification Accuracy	Missing Value Handling	DIA Specialization	Recommended Normalization & Imputation
DIA-NN [22] [20]	High peptide-level detection	High precision (median CV: 16.5-18.4%)	Higher missing values (48% shared proteins)	Excellent; Library-based and library-free	DirectLFQ intensity; No normalization; SeqKNN/Impseq/MinProb imputation
Spectronaut [22] [20]	Highest protein detection (3066±68 proteins)	Good precision (median CV: 22.2-24.0%)	Better data completeness (57% shared proteins)	Excellent; directDIA workflow	Library-based preferred for detection; directDIA for accuracy
PEAKS Studio [22]	Good proteome coverage (2753±47 proteins)	Moderate precision (median CV: 27.5-30.0%)	Moderate data completeness	Growing capability	Sample-specific spectral libraries optimal
FragPipe/MaxQuant [20]	Varies by dataset and workflow	Better with specific normalization	Missing values challenge all workflows	Compatible with specialized workflows	Normalization and DEA methods most influential for label-free DDA

The benchmarking research demonstrated that normalization and differential expression analysis statistical methods exert greater influence on outcomes than other steps for label-free DDA and TMT data, while for label-free DIA data, the matrix type is also critically important [20]. High-performing workflows for label-free data are enriched for directLFQ intensity, no normalization (referring to distribution correction methods not embedded with specific settings), and specific imputation methods (SeqKNN, Impseq, or MinProb), while eschewing simple statistical tools like ANOVA, SAM, and t-test, which are enriched in low-performing workflows [20].

Specialized Computational Challenges in Emerging Areas

Single-Cell Proteomics Data Analysis

Single-cell proteomics presents unique computational challenges due to low signal-to-noise ratio, high missing value rates, and limited sample size compared to bulk proteomics [19]. The extremely low abundance of proteins in single cells means measurements often occur near detection limits, resulting in sparse data matrices that complicate statistical analysis. Traditional bulk proteomics analysis methods, which often remove proteins with only one reliable peptide to avoid false identification, are unsuitable for single-cell data as they would severely compromise already limited proteome coverage [19].

Specialized tools like pepDESC (peptide-level Differential Expression analysis for Single-Cell proteomics) have been developed to address these challenges by leveraging peptide-level quantification signals to balance proteome coverage and quantification accuracy [19]. This approach recognizes the hierarchical structure of bottom-up MS-based proteomics data, where protein abundances depend on aggregating peptide-level information.

Recent benchmarking of data-independent acquisition (DIA) workflows for single-cell proteomics revealed that software tools perform differently at the single-cell level compared to bulk analyses [22]. In systematic evaluations using simulated single-cell samples, Spectronaut's directDIA workflow quantified the highest number of proteins (3066 ± 68), while DIA-NN demonstrated superior quantitative precision (median CV values of 16.5-18.4% versus 22.2-24.0% for Spectronaut) [22].

Data-Independent Acquisition (DIA) Computational Strategies

DIA mass spectrometry generates highly convoluted data that requires sophisticated computational solutions for interpretation [22]. Typical DIA analysis methods rely on spectral libraries that define the space of detectable peptides and their characteristics (retention time, ion mobility, fragment patterns). These libraries can be generated from data-dependent acquisition (DDA) runs, from the DIA data itself through deconvolution, or through in-silico prediction [22].

The performance of DIA data analysis solutions depends heavily on the computational approach and instrument platform. Benchmarking studies comparing OpenSWATH, EncyclopeDIA, Skyline, DIA-NN, and Spectronaut across TripleTOF, Orbitrap, and TimsTOF Pro instruments have demonstrated that library-free approaches can outperform library-based methods when spectral libraries have limited comprehensiveness, though constructing comprehensive libraries still generally benefits most DIA analyses [23].

Experimental Protocols for Tool Benchmarking

Large-Scale Workflow Performance Assessment

The comprehensive benchmarking study that evaluated 34,576 workflow combinations implemented a rigorous experimental protocol [20]. Researchers assembled 24 gold-standard spike-in datasets including 12 label-free DDA datasets, 5 TMT datasets, and 7 label-free DIA datasets from various proteomics projects. This collection represents the most extensive benchmark data assembly for cross-platform workflow optimization to date.

Performance was evaluated using five metrics: partial area under receiver operator characteristic curves (pAUC) at false-positive rate thresholds of 0.01, 0.05, and 0.1; normalized Matthew's correlation coefficient (nMCC); and geometric mean of specificity and recall (G-mean). For each workflow, performance metrics were calculated and converted to ranks relative to other workflows, with final ranks determined by averaging across all five metrics [20].

DIA Method Benchmarking Protocol

The benchmarking of DIA analysis tools for single-cell proteomics followed a standardized protocol using simulated single-cell samples [22]. Researchers constructed samples consisting of tryptic digests of human HeLa cells, yeast, and Escherichia coli proteins with defined composition ratios. A reference sample contained 50% human, 25% yeast, and 25% E. coli proteins, while other samples varied the yeast and E. coli proportions from 0.4 to 1.6× reference levels.

The total protein abundance injected into LC-MS/MS systems was 200 pg to mimic single-cell level input. Each sample was analyzed by diaPASEF using a timsTOF Pro 2 mass spectrometer with six technical replicates. These samples with known relative quantities enabled precise evaluation of quantification accuracy at the single-cell level [22].

Essential Research Reagent Solutions

The following table catalogues key reagents and materials essential for implementing robust proteomics workflows, particularly in method benchmarking and validation studies:

Table 3: Essential research reagents and materials for proteomics workflow implementation

Reagent/Material	Function/Purpose	Application Examples	Quality Considerations
Universal Proteomics Standard (UPS1/2) [20]	Spike-in standards with known concentrations; Enable accuracy assessment	Benchmarking workflow performance; Quantification calibration	Defined protein composition; Certificated concentrations
Stable Isotope-Labeled Amino Acids [18]	Metabolic labeling for quantitative comparisons (SILAC)	Relative quantification between cell states; Internal standardization	High isotopic purity; Metabolic incorporation efficiency
Isobaric Mass Tags (TMT, iTRAQ) [18] [21]	Chemical labeling for multiplexed quantification	Multiplexed experimental designs; Reduced technical variability	Labeling efficiency; Reporter ion purity
Trypsin (Protease) [18] [21]	Site-specific protein digestion to peptides	Sample preparation for bottom-up proteomics	Sequencing grade; High purity; Modified to prevent autolysis
Spectral Libraries [22] [23]	Reference data for peptide identification	DIA data analysis; Targeted method development	Comprehensiveness; Platform-specific optimization
Internal Standard Peptides [19]	Retention time calibration; Quantification standards	Targeted proteomics; Absolute quantification	Stable isotope-labeled; High purity

Ensemble Approaches and Workflow Integration

Recent evidence suggests that integrating results from multiple top-performing workflows through ensemble inference can expand differential proteome coverage beyond individual workflows [20]. This approach leverages complementary strengths of different analysis strategies, potentially increasing true positive detection. Research demonstrates that ensemble methods can improve mean partial AUC(0.01) by 1.17-4.61% and enhance G-mean scores by up to 11.14% across different quantification settings [20].

Specifically, integrating top-performing workflows using top0 intensities (incorporating all precursors) with intensities extracted using directLFQ and MaxLFQ can improve differential expression analysis performance more than any single workflow, achieving pAUC(0.01) gains of 4.61% in MaxQuant-processed DDA data [20]. This suggests that while individual intensity extraction methods may have limitations, their strategic combination provides complementary information that enhances overall outcomes.

However, workflow integration presents a double-edged sword: while increasing true positive detection, it also carries the risk of elevated false positives. This highlights the need for further development of robust frameworks for conducting ensemble inference across multiple proteomics workflows [20].

The expanding toolbox of proteomics data analysis software offers researchers multiple pathways for extracting biological insights from mass spectrometry data. The evidence from systematic benchmarking indicates that optimal workflow selection depends significantly on the specific experimental context—including the mass spectrometry platform, quantification strategy, and biological question. Rather than seeking a universal solution, researchers should strategically select and potentially integrate multiple complementary workflows to maximize proteome coverage and quantification accuracy.

For drug development professionals and clinical researchers, these findings emphasize that computational workflow design deserves the same rigorous optimization as experimental protocols. The emergence of ensemble methods points toward a future where strategic integration of multiple computational approaches may become standard practice for maximizing biological insights from precious proteomics samples. As the field continues to evolve, ongoing benchmarking and validation of new computational tools will remain essential for advancing proteomics from a descriptive to a truly quantitative discipline.

A Practical Toolkit: Selecting and Applying Differential Expression Methods for Your Data Type

Differential expression (DE) analysis is a fundamental step in transcriptomics, enabling researchers to identify genes whose expression changes significantly between different biological conditions, such as disease states or treatment groups [24]. Among the numerous methods developed for this task, three have established themselves as cornerstone tools in the field: edgeR, DESeq2, and limma-voom [25]. These tools are frequently applied to bulk RNA-seq data to uncover molecular mechanisms underlying biological processes.

The ongoing evaluation of these tools' performance remains a critical research area within bioinformatics. Understanding their statistical foundations, relative strengths, and limitations is essential for selecting the most appropriate method for a given experimental context and ensuring biologically valid conclusions [24] [26]. This guide provides a comprehensive, objective comparison of these three widely-used workflows, synthesizing information on their methodologies, performance characteristics, and optimal use cases, supported by experimental data and benchmark studies.

Statistical Foundations and Core Methodologies

The three methods employ distinct statistical approaches to model RNA-seq count data and test for differential expression.

Core Statistical Models

• DESeq2: Utilizes a negative binomial modeling framework with empirical Bayes shrinkage for both dispersion estimates and fold changes. This approach stabilizes estimates, particularly for genes with low counts or few replicates [24] [27].
• edgeR: Also employs a negative binomial model but offers more flexible dispersion estimation options, including common, trended, or tagwise dispersion. It provides both likelihood ratio and quasi-likelihood F-testing frameworks [24] [28].
• limma-voom: Applies linear modeling with empirical Bayes moderation to log-transformed counts. The "voom" transformation converts counts to log-CPM values and generates precision weights that account for the mean-variance relationship in the data [24].

Normalization Approaches

Normalization addresses differences in sequencing depth and RNA composition across samples, a critical step in RNA-seq analysis [1].

• DESeq2: Uses a median-of-ratios method based on the geometric mean across all samples, assuming most genes are not differentially expressed [28].
• edgeR: Typically applies the Trimmed Mean of M-values (TMM) method, which also assumes most genes are non-DE and calculates a weighted mean of log ratios between test and reference samples [28].
• limma-voom: Can utilize various normalization methods, including TMM normalization, though historically it has been associated with quantile normalization [28].

Table 1: Core Statistical Foundations of the Three Methods

Aspect	limma-voom	DESeq2	edgeR
Core Statistical Approach	Linear modeling with empirical Bayes moderation	Negative binomial modeling with empirical Bayes shrinkage	Negative binomial modeling with flexible dispersion estimation
Data Transformation	voom transformation converts counts to log-CPM values	Internal normalization based on geometric mean	TMM normalization by default
Variance Handling	Empirical Bayes moderation improves variance estimates for small sample sizes	Adaptive shrinkage for dispersion estimates and fold changes	Flexible options for common, trended, or tagged dispersion
Key Components	voom transformation, linear modeling, empirical Bayes moderation, precision weights	Normalization, dispersion estimation, GLM fitting, hypothesis testing	Normalization, dispersion modeling, GLM/QLF testing, exact testing option

Workflow Diagrams

The following diagram illustrates the general analytical workflow shared by these methods, as well as their key differences:

Diagram 1: Comparative workflow of the three differential expression analysis methods. All methods begin with the same preprocessing steps but diverge in their statistical modeling approaches.

Performance Comparison and Benchmark Data

Extensive evaluations have been conducted to assess the performance of these tools under various experimental conditions.

Sample Size Considerations

Sample size significantly influences method performance, with each tool having different optimal ranges:

• limma-voom: Requires at least 3 replicates per condition for reliable variance estimation. Demonstrates remarkable versatility and computational efficiency, especially with large sample sizes [24].
• DESeq2: Performs well with moderate to large sample sizes (≥3 replicates) and can handle high biological variability effectively [24].
• edgeR: Efficient with very small sample sizes (≥2 replicates) and maintains good performance with large datasets [24] [29].

A critical consideration emerges in population-level studies with large sample sizes (dozens to thousands of samples). Recent research has revealed that both DESeq2 and edgeR can exhibit exaggerated false positive rates in such scenarios, with actual FDRs sometimes exceeding 20% when the target is 5% [30]. In these specific large-sample contexts, non-parametric methods like the Wilcoxon rank-sum test have demonstrated superior FDR control [30].

Agreement and Discrepancies in Results

Multiple studies have investigated the concordance between results from these three methods:

• In standard experiments, there is typically a remarkable level of agreement in the differentially expressed genes identified by all three tools, despite their distinct statistical approaches [24].
• However, significant discrepancies can emerge in specific contexts. One analysis of an immunotherapy dataset (51 vs. 58 samples) found that DESeq2 and edgeR had only an 8% overlap in identified DEGs, raising concerns about reliability in certain scenarios [30].
• When methods disagree, it often manifests as one method identifying a subset of the genes detected by another, rather than completely discordant results [27].

Table 2: Performance Characteristics Under Different Experimental Conditions

Aspect	limma-voom	DESeq2	edgeR
Ideal Sample Size	≥3 replicates per condition	≥3 replicates, performs well with more	≥2 replicates, efficient with small samples
Best Use Cases	Small sample sizes, multi-factor experiments, time-series data, integration with other omics	Moderate to large sample sizes, high biological variability, subtle expression changes, strong FDR control	Very small sample sizes, large datasets, technical replicates, flexible modeling needs
Computational Efficiency	Very efficient, scales well	Can be computationally intensive	Highly efficient, fast processing
Large Sample Performance	Excellent speed and performance	Potential FDR inflation in population studies	Potential FDR inflation in population studies
Low Count Performance	May not handle extreme overdispersion well	Automatic outlier detection, independent filtering	Particularly shines with low expression counts

Performance in Species-Specific Contexts

Recent comprehensive evaluations have revealed that the performance of these tools can vary when applied to data from different species. One study analyzing RNA-seq data from plants, animals, and fungi observed some variations in performance when the same analytical tools were applied to different species [26]. This highlights the importance of considering species-specific factors when selecting analysis tools, rather than using identical parameters across all organisms.

Practical Implementation Protocols

This section provides detailed methodologies for implementing these tools based on established protocols.

Data Preparation and Quality Control

Proper data preparation is essential for all three methods:

Initial Setup in R:

Data Filtering: Filter low-expressed genes to improve power and reduce multiple testing burden. A common approach is to keep genes expressed in at least 80% of samples [24]:

DESeq2 Analysis Pipeline

Protocol Source: Adapted from established DESeq2 workflows [24] [31]

Step-by-Step Implementation:

• Create DESeq2 Dataset:

• Set Reference Level:

• Perform DE Analysis:

• Extract Results:

edgeR Analysis Pipeline

Protocol Source: Adapted from established edgeR workflows [24]

Step-by-Step Implementation:

• Create DGEList Object:

• Normalize Library Sizes:

• Estimate Dispersion:

• Perform Quasi-likelihood F-tests:

limma-voom Analysis Pipeline

Protocol Source: Adapted from established limma-voom workflows [24]

Step-by-Step Implementation:

• Create DGEList and Normalize:

• Apply voom Transformation:

• Fit Linear Model:

• Extract Results:

The following diagram illustrates the method-specific statistical approaches and their key steps:

Diagram 2: Detailed statistical workflows for each method showing key analytical steps and their sequence.

Essential Research Reagent Solutions

A robust RNA-seq analysis pipeline requires both computational tools and appropriate methodological components. The following table outlines key elements used in a comprehensive RNA-seq workflow:

Table 3: Essential Components of an RNA-seq Analysis Pipeline

Component	Function	Example Tools
Quality Control	Assess read quality and identify sequencing artifacts	FastQC, Trimmomatic, fastp, Trim_Galore [26]
Read Trimming	Remove adapter sequences and low-quality bases	Trimmomatic, Cutadapt, fastp [26]
Alignment	Map sequencing reads to reference genome	HISAT2, STAR [32]
Quantification	Generate count data for genes/transcripts	Salmon, HTSeq, featureCounts [31] [1]
Differential Expression	Identify statistically significant expression changes	DESeq2, edgeR, limma-voom [24] [25]
Functional Analysis	Interpret biological meaning of results	GO enrichment, pathway analysis
Visualization	Create informative data representations	ggplot2, pheatmap, VennDiagram [24]

DESeq2, edgeR, and limma-voom represent mature, highly-optimized solutions for differential expression analysis from bulk RNA-seq data. While they share the common goal of identifying statistically significant expression changes, their differing statistical approaches lead to distinct performance characteristics and optimal application domains.

The choice between methods should be guided by specific experimental parameters. For well-replicated experiments with complex designs, limma-voom often provides excellent performance and computational efficiency. When working with low-abundance transcripts or very small sample sizes, edgeR may be preferable. DESeq2 offers robust performance across many scenarios, with particularly strong FDR control in standard experimental setups [24].

Recent research has highlighted that no single method dominates all experimental scenarios. Particularly concerning are findings of FDR control issues with DESeq2 and edgeR in large population-level studies [30], suggesting that alternative approaches like non-parametric tests may be preferable in these specific contexts. Future methodological developments will likely focus on improving reliability across diverse sample sizes and experimental designs, as well as enhancing integration with other data types in multi-omics frameworks.

Differential expression (DE) analysis represents a fundamental methodology in single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) investigations, enabling researchers to identify genes with expression patterns that vary significantly across different biological conditions, cell types, or experimental treatments. Unlike bulk RNA-seq, which measures average gene expression across cell populations, scRNA-seq provides unprecedented resolution at the individual cell level, revealing cellular heterogeneity and enabling the discovery of novel cell states and subtypes [33]. However, this technological advancement introduces substantial analytical challenges, including high levels of technical noise, dropout events (where genes that are expressed fail to be detected), and complex multimodal expression distributions that violate assumptions of traditional statistical methods [34].

The development of specialized computational tools capable of addressing these scRNA-seq-specific challenges has become an active area of bioinformatics research. Among these, MAST (Model-based Analysis of Single-cell Transcriptomics), scDD (single-cell Differential Distributions), and DiSC (Differential State Correlation) represent three distinct methodological approaches to single-cell DE analysis. MAST employs a two-part generalized linear hurdle model to separately model expression rates and levels, scDD detects diverse distributional changes beyond mean shifts, while DiSC incorporates correlation structures across cell types to improve detection power [35] [34]. Understanding the relative strengths, limitations, and appropriate application contexts for these methods is essential for researchers seeking to extract biologically meaningful insights from their single-cell data.

This review presents a comprehensive comparative analysis of MAST, scDD, and DiSC, focusing on their methodological foundations, performance characteristics, and suitability for different experimental contexts. Through examination of benchmark studies and experimental validations, we provide evidence-based guidance for researchers navigating the complex landscape of single-cell differential expression tools.

MAST (Model-based Analysis of Single-cell Transcriptomics)

MAST employs a sophisticated two-part generalized linear hurdle model that explicitly addresses the bimodal nature of single-cell expression data resulting from dropout events. The method separately models the discrete (presence/absence of expression) and continuous (expression level when present) components of gene expression [34] [36]. For each gene, MAST fits a logistic regression component to model the probability of expression (detection rate) and a Gaussian linear model component to model the conditional expression level given that the gene is detected. These two components are assumed to be independent conditional on the cellular detection rate, which is included as a covariate to account for technical variation. Statistical significance is assessed through likelihood ratio tests comparing models with and without the condition of interest [36].

The key advantage of MAST's approach lies in its explicit handling of dropout events, which typically account for a substantial proportion of zeros in scRNA-seq data. By separately modeling the detection rate and expression level, MAST can distinguish between biological absence of expression and technical dropouts, potentially increasing power to detect true differential expression. This methodology has demonstrated particularly strong performance in benchmark evaluations, with one comprehensive study identifying it as the only scRNA-seq-specific method that outperformed established bulk RNA-seq DE methods [37].

scDD (single-cell Differential Distributions)

scDD adopts a fundamentally different approach by focusing on detecting diverse distributional changes between conditions rather than simply testing for differences in mean expression. The method employs a Bayesian modeling framework to categorize genes into several distinct patterns of differential expression: differential mean (DM), differential proportion (DP), differential modality (DM), and both (DB) [34]. This comprehensive classification enables scDD to identify more subtle and complex patterns of regulation that might be missed by methods focusing solely on mean differences.

The scDD framework utilizes a semiparametric approach that combines the flexibility of Dirichlet process mixture models with the efficiency of empirical Bayes methods. Genes are modeled using a mixture of normal distributions to capture potential multimodality in expression patterns, and Bayes factors are computed to compare the evidence for differential distributions versus equivalent distributions across conditions [34]. This approach is particularly powerful for detecting genes with multimodal expression distributions, which may indicate the presence of novel cell subtypes or distinct regulatory states within apparently homogeneous cell populations.

DiSC (Differential State Correlation)

DiSC introduces a novel perspective on single-cell DE analysis by incorporating correlation structures across cell types through a Bayesian hierarchical model. Unlike traditional methods that analyze each cell type independently, DiSC leverages the biological insight that cell types with common developmental lineages or functional roles often exhibit correlated differential expression patterns [35]. The method implements a sophisticated framework where DE states across related cell types are modeled as dependent random variables, with correlations estimated from the data or derived from a cell type hierarchy.

The DiSC methodology involves creating a "pseudo-bulk" expression matrix for each cell type by aggregating counts from individual cells, followed by normalization. A cell type hierarchical tree is constructed based on correlation of expression changes across cell types, which informs the prior probabilities in the Bayesian model. Posterior probabilities for DE are then computed, enabling information sharing across correlated cell types and potentially improving power, particularly for rare cell populations with limited numbers of cells [35]. This approach represents a significant departure from conventional single-cell DE methods and addresses the important biological reality of coordinated regulation across cell types.

Table 1: Key Methodological Characteristics of MAST, scDD, and DiSC

Feature	MAST	scDD	DiSC
Statistical Model	Two-part generalized linear hurdle model	Bayesian semiparametric mixture model	Bayesian hierarchical model
Handling of Zeros	Explicit via hurdle component	Through mixture components	Via pseudo-bulk aggregation
Distributional Focus	Mean and prevalence	Entire distribution	Mean with correlation
Cell Type Correlation	Not incorporated	Not incorporated	Explicitly modeled
Key Strength	Handling dropout events	Detecting multimodal differences	Leveraging cross-cell-type information
Computational Demand	Moderate	High	High

Experimental Design and Benchmarking Approaches

Benchmarking Frameworks and Performance Metrics

Rigorous evaluation of differential expression methods requires carefully designed benchmarking studies that assess performance across multiple dimensions. The most informative benchmarks employ a combination of simulated datasets, where the ground truth is known, and real datasets with validated differential expression patterns. For scRNA-seq methods, key performance metrics include:

• Sensitivity (True Positive Rate): The proportion of truly differentially expressed genes that are correctly identified by the method.
• False Discovery Rate (FDR): The proportion of falsely identified DE genes among all genes called as differentially expressed.
• Area Under the ROC Curve (AUROC): A comprehensive measure of classification performance across all possible significance thresholds.
• Precision and Recall: Complementary metrics that balance the trade-off between identifying true positives and minimizing false positives.
• Reproducibility: Consistency of results across technical replicates or subsampled datasets [34] [36].

Comprehensive benchmarking studies have revealed that the performance of DE methods can vary substantially depending on experimental factors such as sample size, the proportion of truly DE genes, the magnitude of expression differences, and the underlying distribution of the data [36]. These findings highlight the importance of context-specific method selection rather than seeking a universally superior approach.

Reference Datasets and Validation Strategies

Well-characterized datasets play a crucial role in the objective evaluation of DE method performance. The Kang dataset, comprising scRNA-seq data from peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) of Lupus patients before and after interferon-beta treatment, has emerged as a valuable benchmark due to its well-defined experimental conditions and the availability of multiple biological replicates [38]. This dataset enables researchers to evaluate how methods perform in detecting expression changes in response to a specific stimulus across diverse immune cell types.

Other validation approaches include using bulk RNA-seq data from the same samples as a reference standard, cross-validation with RT-qPCR results, and sophisticated simulation frameworks that generate scRNA-seq data with known DE patterns while preserving key characteristics of real data such as dropout rates and expression distributions [37]. These complementary approaches provide a comprehensive assessment of method performance under different scenarios and with varying degrees of prior knowledge about true differential expression.

Diagram 1: Experimental Benchmarking Workflow for Evaluating Differential Expression Methods. This workflow illustrates the comprehensive approach used to compare the performance of MAST, scDD, and DiSC against established methods and benchmarks.

Performance Comparison and Results

Statistical Power and Accuracy

Multiple benchmarking studies have evaluated the performance of MAST, scDD, and related methods under various experimental conditions. In a comprehensive assessment comparing eleven differential expression tools, MAST demonstrated particularly strong performance with the largest AUROC values across different sample sizes and proportions of truly differentially expressed genes when data followed negative binomial distributions [36]. When sample size increased to 100 cells per group, MAST maintained superior performance with the highest AUROC regardless of data distributions.

scDD has shown exceptional capability in detecting complex distributional differences beyond simple mean shifts. While its performance on traditional DE detection metrics may be comparable to other methods, its unique strength lies in identifying genes with differential modality or proportion of expressing cells, patterns that are often biologically significant but missed by conventional approaches [34]. This makes scDD particularly valuable for discovering novel cell subtypes or identifying genes with heterogeneous responses within seemingly uniform cell populations.

Although direct benchmarking results for DiSC are more limited in the available literature, its innovative approach of incorporating cell type correlations shows promise for improving detection power, especially for rare cell types with limited numbers of cells. By leveraging information across correlated cell types, DiSC can potentially identify consistent expression changes that might be statistically undetectable when analyzing each cell type in isolation [35].

Table 2: Performance Comparison Across Experimental Conditions

Experimental Condition	MAST	scDD	DiSC	Best Performing Method
Small Sample Size (< 50 cells/group)	AUROC: 0.75-0.82	AUROC: 0.72-0.79	Limited data	MAST
Large Sample Size (> 100 cells/group)	AUROC: 0.84-0.89	AUROC: 0.81-0.86	Limited data	MAST
High Dropout Rate (> 60% zeros)	Maintains performance	Moderate performance decrease	Limited data	MAST
Multimodal Distributions	Limited detection	Excellent detection	Unknown	scDD
Rare Cell Types	Standard performance	Standard performance	Potentially improved	DiSC (theoretical)
Mean-Only Differences	Excellent detection	Good detection	Good detection	MAST

False Discovery Control and Reproducibility

Proper control of false discoveries is crucial for any statistical method in genomics applications. Evaluation studies have revealed important differences in how MAST, scDD, and DiSC handle Type I error rates. MAST has demonstrated generally good FDR control across various simulation scenarios, particularly when the hurdle model assumptions align with the data characteristics [36]. However, like most methods designed for scRNA-seq data, it may become conservative or anti-conservative under certain conditions, such as when the relationship between detection rate and expression level differs from the modeled assumptions.

scDD's Bayesian framework provides natural uncertainty quantification through posterior probabilities, which can be calibrated to control false discoveries. However, the method's flexibility in detecting diverse distributional changes may come at the cost of increased false positives when applied to datasets with limited sample sizes or high technical noise [34]. Proper prior specification and careful threshold selection are particularly important for scDD to maintain appropriate error control.

The reproducibility of results across technical replicates or slightly different analytical choices represents another important dimension of method performance. Studies comparing the reproducibility of single-cell DE methods have found that MAST shows generally good concordance across replicates, while methods like scDD may show more variability due to their sensitivity to complex distributional patterns that might not be consistently captured across subsamples [36]. The reproducibility characteristics of DiSC have not been extensively evaluated in the available literature.

Computational Efficiency and Scalability

As scRNA-seq datasets continue to grow in size, computational efficiency becomes an increasingly important practical consideration. Among the three methods, MAST offers relatively moderate computational demands, making it feasible for datasets containing tens of thousands of cells. The method's implementation efficiently handles the two-component model through parallelization and optimized linear algebra operations.

scDD's Bayesian framework and semiparametric approach are computationally more intensive, particularly for large datasets with many cells and genes. The method employs various approximation techniques to improve scalability, but may still require substantial computational resources for comprehensive analyses of complex datasets [34].

DiSC's hierarchical Bayesian model and the need to estimate correlation structures across cell types introduce significant computational complexity. The method requires careful tuning of Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) sampling procedures and may benefit from variational approximation approaches for application to very large datasets [35]. Users working with massive single-cell atlas projects should consider these computational requirements when selecting an appropriate DE method.

Diagram 2: Method Strengths and Limitations Comparison. This diagram summarizes the key advantages and challenges associated with MAST, scDD, and DiSC, highlighting their complementary capabilities.

Table 3: Key Experimental Resources for Single-Cell Differential Expression Studies

Resource Type	Specific Examples	Function in DE Analysis	Considerations
Reference Datasets	Kang PBMC dataset [38], Blischak cell line dataset [37]	Method validation and benchmarking	Ensure appropriate experimental design and replication
Benchmarking Frameworks	Soneson & Robinson pipeline [37], scRNA-seq best practices [38]	Standardized performance evaluation	Include multiple performance metrics and experimental conditions
Normalization Methods	Library size normalization, DESeq2-style normalization, TMM, UQ	Remove technical biases prior to DE analysis	Choice affects downstream results; test sensitivity
Quality Control Metrics	Detection rate, mitochondrial percentage, doublet scores	Filter low-quality cells and genes	Stringency affects power and false discovery rates
Validation Platforms	Bulk RNA-seq, RT-qPCR, spike-in controls [37]	Verify biological findings	Orthogonal confirmation strengthens conclusions
Computational Infrastructure	High-performance computing clusters, optimized software containers	Handle computational demands of large datasets	Scalability essential for large-scale studies

Discussion and Practical Recommendations

The comparative analysis of MAST, scDD, and DiSC reveals a complex landscape where each method excels in specific scenarios, reflecting their different methodological foundations and design priorities. MAST consistently demonstrates strong overall performance in traditional differential expression detection, particularly when dealing with typical scRNA-seq data characteristics such as high dropout rates and moderate sample sizes. Its rigorous statistical framework and good false discovery control make it a reliable choice for most standard applications where the goal is identifying genes with mean expression differences between conditions.

scDD offers unique capabilities for detecting more complex patterns of differential expression that may reflect biologically important but subtle regulatory mechanisms. Its ability to identify genes with multimodal distributions or differences in expression proportion makes it particularly valuable for exploratory analyses aimed at discovering novel cell states or heterogeneous responses within cell populations. However, this increased sensitivity to complex distributional patterns comes with higher computational demands and requires careful interpretation of results.

DiSC represents an innovative approach that addresses the important biological reality of correlated expression changes across related cell types. While comprehensive benchmarking data is more limited, its theoretical foundation suggests particular utility for studies involving multiple cell types with known developmental or functional relationships, especially when analyzing rare cell populations with limited numbers of cells. The method's ability to leverage information across cell types could significantly improve power in such scenarios.

For researchers selecting an appropriate method for their specific application, we recommend the following evidence-based guidelines:

• For standard differential expression analysis focusing on mean expression differences, particularly with moderate sample sizes and typical scRNA-seq data characteristics, MAST provides an excellent balance of statistical power, false discovery control, and computational efficiency.

• For exploratory analyses aimed at detecting complex distributional changes, heterogeneous responses, or potential novel cell states, scDD offers unique capabilities not available in other methods, despite its higher computational requirements.

• For studies involving multiple correlated cell types, especially when including rare cell populations, DiSC presents a promising approach for improving detection power by leveraging cross-cell-type information, though users should be prepared for its computational complexity and implementation challenges.

• For critical applications where method choice could significantly impact biological conclusions, we recommend a consensus approach combining multiple complementary methods, with careful validation of results using orthogonal experimental techniques.

As the single-cell field continues to evolve with increasingly complex experimental designs and larger datasets, further method development and benchmarking will be essential. Promising directions include methods that combine the strengths of these approaches, such as modeling cross-cell-type correlations while accommodating complex distributional changes, and improved computational strategies for scaling these methods to massive single-cell atlas projects. Through continued methodological innovation and rigorous evaluation, the research community will be better equipped to extract the full biological potential from single-cell transcriptomic studies.

Differential expression (DE) analysis is a cornerstone of single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) studies, enabling the identification of genes that vary between conditions, cell types, or developmental stages. However, the inherent structure of multi-sample scRNA-seq data—where multiple cells are measured from each biological replicate (e.g., patient or mouse)—presents a significant statistical challenge. Treating individual cells as independent observations ignores the natural correlation between cells from the same donor, leading to pseudoreplication bias and an inflated rate of false discoveries [39] [40].

Pseudobulk approaches have emerged as a powerful and statistically sound solution to this problem. These methods involve aggregating raw counts from all cells of a specific type within each biological sample, creating a "pseudobulk" expression profile per sample. These aggregated profiles can then be analyzed using robust, well-established bulk RNA-seq tools like edgeR, DESeq2, and limma-voom [41] [40] [42]. This guide provides an objective comparison of pseudobulk methodologies against alternative strategies, grounded in recent benchmarking studies and experimental data.

Performance Benchmarking: Pseudobulk vs. Alternative Methods

Comprehensive benchmarking studies consistently demonstrate that pseudobulk methods achieve superior performance by properly accounting for biological replication and minimizing false positives.

Table 1: Key Performance Metrics from Benchmarking Studies

Benchmarking Study	Methods Compared	Key Performance Finding	Primary Metric(s)
Murphy et al. (2022) [39]	Pseudobulk (mean/sum), Mixed Models (MAST_RE, GLMM), Pseudoreplication (Tobit, Modified t)	Pseudobulk (mean) achieved the highest performance across variations in individuals and cells.	Matthews Correlation Coefficient (MCC), Sensitivity at controlled Type-1 Error
Squair et al. (2021) [40]	6 Pseudobulk vs. 8 Single-cell DE methods	Pseudobulk methods outperformed all single-cell methods in concordance with bulk RNA-seq ground truth.	Area Under Concordance Curve (AUCC)
Su et al. (2022) [43]	18 DE methods (Pseudobulk, Mixed Models, Naïve)	Pseudobulk methods performed generally best. Naïve models achieved higher sensitivity but had a high number of false positives.	AUROC, Sensitivity, Specificity, F1-score, MCC
Song et al. (2023) [15]	46 workflows (BEC data, Covariate modeling, Meta-analysis)	For large batch effects, covariate modeling improved methods like MAST and limmatrend, but use of batch-corrected data rarely improved analysis.	F-score, Area Under Precision-Recall Curve (AUPR)

Quantitative Performance Breakdown

Table 2: Error Control and Power Analysis

Method Category	Type I Error (False Positives)	Type II Error (False Negatives)	Bias Noted in Studies
Pseudobulk Methods	Best control; fewer false positives than expected at nominal levels [39] [40].	Lower Type-II error at equivalent Type-I error rates than other methods [39].	Minimal bias; robust to highly expressed genes [40].
Mixed Models	Better control than naïve methods, but can be outperformed by pseudobulk [39] [43].	Variable performance; some models (e.g., MAST_RE) showed relatively poor performance in simulations [39].	---
Naïve Single-Cell Methods	Highly inflated; can discover hundreds of DE genes in the absence of true biological differences [43] [40].	Lower power for highly expressed genes due to systematic bias [40].	Strong bias towards highly expressed genes, leading to false positives [40].

A pivotal study by Squair et al. (2021) created a ground-truth resource using matched scRNA-seq and bulk RNA-seq data. They found that pseudobulk methods more faithfully recapitulated the biological ground truth from bulk data, both in terms of gene-level concordance and the functional interpretation of results via Gene Ontology term enrichment [40]. Furthermore, when pseudobulk methods were applied directly to single cells (bypassing aggregation), their performance dropped significantly and the bias towards highly expressed genes re-emerged, proving that the aggregation procedure itself is critical for accuracy [40].

Experimental Protocols for Key Benchmarking Studies

The superior performance of pseudobulk methods is validated through rigorous experimental designs, including large-scale simulations and comparisons with ground-truth datasets.

Simulation-Based Benchmarking Using Hierarchicell

Objective: To systematically evaluate the Type-I and Type-II error control of various DE methods under a known ground truth [39].

• Data Simulation: The hierarchicell R package was modified to simulate scRNA-seq data with a hierarchical structure (cells nested within individuals). The simulation included both non-differentially expressed genes and DE genes with randomly assigned fold changes between 1.1 and 10.
• Method Testing: Multiple methods were tested, including pseudobulk (mean and sum aggregation), mixed models (e.g., Two-part hurdle with random effects, GLMM Tweedie), and pseudoreplication approaches (e.g., Modified t-test, Tobit).
• Performance Evaluation: The primary evaluation metric was the Matthews Correlation Coefficient (MCC), which provides a balanced measure of performance for both DE and non-DE genes. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves were also generated to compare sensitivity at controlled Type-I error rates (e.g., 0.05).
• Key Result: Pseudobulk approaches, particularly mean aggregation, achieved the highest MCC across most simulations and demonstrated the highest sensitivity at a controlled Type-I error rate of 0.05 [39].

Ground-Truth Benchmarking with Matched Bulk and scRNA-seq

Objective: To compare the performance of DE methods in real datasets where the expected result is known with high confidence [40].

• Data Curation: Eighteen "gold standard" datasets were curated, each consisting of scRNA-seq and bulk RNA-seq data generated from the same purified cell populations exposed to the same perturbations.
• Method Application: Fourteen DE methods (six pseudobulk and eight single-cell methods) were applied to the scRNA-seq data from each dataset.
• Concordance Analysis: The DE results from each scRNA-seq method were compared to the results from the matched bulk RNA-seq data (the ground truth). Performance was quantified by calculating the Area Under the Concordance Curve (AUCC).
• Key Result: All six of the top-performing methods were pseudobulk approaches, demonstrating significantly higher concordance with the bulk RNA-seq ground truth than any method analyzing single cells directly [40].

Large-Scale Workflow Benchmarking Across Conditions

Objective: To benchmark 46 integrative DE workflows under various technical conditions, including batch effects, sequencing depth, and data sparsity [15].

• Data Simulation & Analysis: scRNA-seq data was simulated using both model-based (splatter) and model-free approaches, incorporating different levels of batch effects and sequencing depth (ranging from depth-77 to depth-4).
• Workflow Testing: Workflows included: 1) DE analysis on batch-effect-corrected (BEC) data, 2) Covariate modeling (including batch as a covariate), and 3) Meta-analysis.
• Performance Evaluation: Performance was assessed using the F-score (specifically F0.5, weighting precision higher than recall) and the Area Under the Precision-Recall Curve (AUPR).
• Key Result: The use of BEC data rarely improved DE analysis. For large batch effects, covariate modeling improved the performance of methods like MAST and limmatrend. Pseudobulk methods performed well, but their performance could degrade with large batch effects and low sequencing depths [15].

Visualizing Experimental Workflows

The following diagram illustrates the core structure of a standard pseudobulk analysis, from raw single-cell data to differential expression testing.

Integrated Differential Detection and Expression Workflow

Recent methodologies extend beyond traditional mean expression analysis. The diagram below outlines a unified workflow for jointly assessing differential expression (DE) and differential detection (DD), which can provide complementary biological insights [44].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Solutions

Successful implementation of a pseudobulk analysis requires a combination of specific data, software tools, and statistical models.

Table 3: Key Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Item Name	Function / Role in Analysis	Implementation Notes
Raw Count Matrix	The foundation of the analysis. Contains the unnormalized gene counts for every cell and gene. Essential for accurate aggregation [42].	Stored in SingleCellExperiment or Seurat objects. Normalized counts should not be used for aggregation.
Cell Metadata	Contains annotations for every cell, including cell type, sample ID (batch), and condition (e.g., control vs. treated) [41].	Used to group cells for aggregation. Must be carefully curated to ensure accurate biological replication.
Pseudobulk Aggregation Scripts	R or Python code to sum or average counts for each gene across cells of the same type and sample [41] [42].	Can be implemented with tools like scater in R or Decoupler in Galaxy.
Bulk RNA-seq DE Tools	Well-validated software packages that perform statistical testing on the aggregated pseudobulk matrix.	edgeR, DESeq2, and limma-voom are the most commonly used and recommended tools [41] [43] [40].
High-Performance Computing (HPC) Environment	Provides the computational resources needed for data manipulation, aggregation, and iterative DE analysis across multiple cell types.	Necessary for handling large, multi-sample scRNA-seq datasets in a reasonable time.

Within the broader thesis of evaluating differential expression tool performance, evidence from multiple independent, rigorous benchmarks firmly establishes pseudobulk approaches as the current gold standard for multi-sample scRNA-seq studies. Their primary strength lies in robust control of false discoveries by correctly modeling the experimental design and treating biological replicates as the unit of observation.

The choice between pseudobulk and other methods like mixed models can be context-dependent. Pseudobulk methods are generally recommended for their proven performance, computational efficiency, and straightforward implementation using established bulk RNA-seq tools. However, for complex experimental designs with paired or longitudinal sampling, researchers should also consider emerging methods like scMetaIntegrator [45] or workflows that integrate differential detection with standard DE analysis [44] to gain a more comprehensive view of transcriptomic changes.

Differential expression (DE) analysis in mass spectrometry-based proteomics is a critical process for identifying protein abundance changes across biological conditions, enabling biomarker discovery and mechanistic studies. This analysis involves a multi-step computational workflow where choices in normalization, missing value imputation, and statistical testing significantly impact results and biological interpretations [46]. The proteomics field lacks standardized workflows, leading to challenges in reproducibility and consistency across studies. A comprehensive evaluation of method combinations is essential, as optimal performance depends on synergistic interactions between workflow steps rather than individual method performance alone [20]. This guide provides an objective comparison of alternative approaches based on recent large-scale benchmarking studies, experimental data, and systematic evaluations to inform researchers about optimal workflow configurations for different proteomic contexts.

Experimental Design and Benchmarking Frameworks

Benchmarking Studies and Dataset Characteristics

Robust benchmarking requires gold-standard datasets with known ground truth. Recent large-scale studies have employed spike-in experiments where proteins of known concentrations are added to complex biological backgrounds, enabling accurate performance evaluation of DE workflows [20]. These studies systematically evaluate workflow combinations across diverse acquisition methods, including label-free data-dependent acquisition (DDA), label-free data-independent acquisition (DIA), and labeled tandem mass tag (TMT) approaches [20] [47].

Table 1: Proteomic Benchmark Datasets for DE Analysis Evaluation

Dataset Type	Number of Datasets	Contrasts	Quantification Platforms	Key Characteristics
Label-free DDA	12	22	FragPipe, MaxQuant	UPS1 proteins at different concentrations in yeast background
TMT-labeled	5	15	MaxQuant	Multiplexed designs with ratio compression considerations
Label-free DIA	7	17	DIA-NN, Spectronaut	Systematic fragmentation windows, improved reproducibility
Metaproteomics	3	Variable	Multiple	High missing value ratios (30-96%), multi-organism systems
Single-cell DIA	Custom	4	DIA-NN, Spectronaut, PEAKS	Low input (200pg), high missing values, batch effects

Performance Metrics and Evaluation Methodologies

Performance evaluation employs multiple complementary metrics to assess workflow effectiveness:

• Partial Area Under ROC Curve (pAUC): Measures true positive rate at low false discovery rates (0.01, 0.05, 0.1) [20]
• Matthew's Correlation Coefficient (MCC): Balanced measure considering true/false positives/negatives [20]
• G-mean: Geometric mean of specificity and recall [20]
• Quantitative Accuracy: Fold change deviation from expected values [47]
• Consistency Metrics: Jaccard indices for functional enrichment concordance [46]

Large-scale benchmarking studies have evaluated 34,576 combinatorial workflow combinations to identify optimal strategies across different proteomic platforms [20]. Performance ranks are determined by averaging metric ranks across benchmarks, providing robust workflow comparisons.

Normalization Methods Comparison

Normalization corrects for technical variations in sample preparation, loading, and instrument performance. The optimal approach depends on data characteristics and experimental design.

Table 2: Normalization Methods for Proteomics Data

Method	Underlying Principle	Best-Suited Applications	Performance Considerations
Total Intensity	Equalizes total protein amount across samples	Variations in sample loading or protein content	Assumes most proteins unchanged; performs poorly with extensive differential expression
Median Normalization	Scales based on median intensity across samples	Consistent median protein abundance distributions	Robust to outliers; superior to total intensity with asymmetric expression
Reference Normalization	Uses stable proteins or spiked-in standards	Experiments with known controls or standards	High precision when reliable references available
Quantile Normalization	Forces identical intensity distributions across samples	Homogeneous data structure assumption	May over-correct with extensive true biological variation
Variance Stabilization (VSN)	Accounts for variance-mean dependence in MS data	Data with strong intensity-dependent variance	Handles heteroscedasticity effectively
Normics	Combines variance and data-inherent correlation structure	Data with high shares of differential expression	Identifies stable proteins for normalization without prior information [48]

Normalization impact varies by data type. For label-free DDA and TMT data, normalization methods exert strong influence on workflow performance, while for DIA data, matrix type is equally important [20]. The Normics algorithm demonstrates robust performance across diverse conditions by ranking proteins based on expression level-corrected variance and mean correlation with other proteins, using this correlation as a novel indicator of non-differential expression likelihood [48].

Missing Value Imputation Strategies

Missing values present significant challenges in proteomics, particularly in single-cell and metaproteomics applications where missingness rates can exceed 90% [49] [47]. The optimal strategy depends on missing value mechanisms (MNAR, MAR, MCAR) and data context.

Table 3: Imputation and Imputation-Free Methods for Proteomics DEA

Method Category	Specific Methods	Mechanism	Optimal Application Context
Imputation (MNAR)	½ LOD replacement, MinProb	Replaces missing values with low intensity values	Missing not at random data; abundance below detection limit
Imputation (MAR/MCAR)	KNN, ImpSeq, SeqKNN	Estimates missing values from similar features/patterns	Data with correlation structure; not extensive missingness
Model-Based Imputation	bPCA, Random Forest	Leverages statistical models for estimation	Complex missing patterns; moderate missingness
Imputation-Free	Two-part t-test, Two-part Wilcoxon, SDA	Models missingness directly without imputation	High missingness ratio (>30%); small sample sizes
Shrinkage-Based	MDstatsDIAMS	Distribution-free covariance estimation	Small sample sizes; DIA-MS data with correlation structure [50]

Recent evaluations indicate that for metaproteomic data with high missingness ratios, imputation-free methods like two-part Wilcoxon tests outperform imputation-based approaches, particularly in large sample sizes with high missingness [49]. In standard proteomics, high-performing workflows are enriched for SeqKNN, ImpSeq, or MinProb imputation while generally eschewing simple methods [20].

The choice between imputation and imputation-free approaches depends on missing value mechanisms. For MNAR data, left-censored methods (½ LOD, MinProb) are appropriate, while for MAR/MCAR data, KNN or model-based approaches perform better [49]. However, studies on large clinical peptidomics datasets found that imputation method choice (between ½ LOD and KNN) had minimal impact compared to batch effect correction approaches [51].

Statistical Testing Methods Performance

Statistical testing identifies significantly differentially expressed proteins while controlling error rates. Method performance varies significantly based on data characteristics and experimental design.

Table 4: Statistical Methods for Differential Expression Analysis in Proteomics

Method	Statistical Approach	Data Type Suitability	Advantages	Limitations
Classical t-test	Frequentist parametric	Simple comparisons (A vs B)	Simple implementation; intuitive	Strong distributional assumptions; low power with small n
ANOVA	Frequentist parametric	Multiple conditions	Handles multiple groups	Similar limitations as t-test; sensitive to outliers
Limma	Empirical Bayes moderation	Multiple designs; small sample sizes	Improved power with small replicates; variance stabilization	Assumes normal distribution after moderation
MSstats	Linear mixed-effects models	Complex designs; time series	Handles repeated measures; multifactorial designs	Computational intensity; complex implementation
DEqMS	Variance moderation by peptide count	Label-free data	Accounts for variance dependence on features	Limited to specific data types
ROTS	Reproducibility-optimized test statistic	Multiple designs	Adapts to data characteristics; selects optimal statistic	May overfit to specific data patterns
Bayesian Methods	Bayesian inference with priors	Small sample sizes; complex designs	Incorporates uncertainty; intuitive probability statements	Computational intensity; prior specification challenges
Two-part Tests	Combines presence/absence and intensity	High missingness data	Handles MNAR mechanisms effectively	Reduced power with low missingness
MDstatsDIAMS	Shrinkage covariance estimation	DIA-MS bottom-up proteomics	Addresses fragment ion correlations; small sample robustness	Specialized for DIA-MS peptide-level analysis [50]

For standard proteomic data, empirical Bayes methods (Limma) and linear mixed models (MSstats) generally outperform classical tests, particularly with small sample sizes [46]. In metaproteomics with high missingness, two-part tests (two-part Wilcoxon) demonstrate superior performance, while in DIA-MS data with correlated fragment ions, specialized methods like MDstatsDIAMS show advantages [50] [49].

The proposed MDstatsDIAMS method incorporates a hierarchical probabilistic graphical model that accounts for non-normality and correlations between fragment ion quantities, using James-Stein-type shrinkage estimation for improved covariance estimation with small samples [50]. Simulation experiments demonstrate it outperforms classical methods (t-tests) and modern approaches (ROTS, MSstatsLiP) in specificity, sensitivity, and accuracy when data distribution resembles real MS data [50].

Integrated Workflow Performance

Optimal DE analysis requires synergistic combination of workflow steps rather than individual method selection. High-performing workflows show conserved properties across different proteomic platforms.

Figure 1: Optimal Workflow Configurations for Proteomics DE Analysis. Green pathways indicate high-performing method combinations across different acquisition platforms.

Performance evaluation reveals that optimal workflows are highly platform-specific. For label-free DDA data, normalization and statistical methods exert greater influence than other steps, while for DIA data, matrix construction is equally important [20]. High-performing workflows for label-free data are enriched for directLFQ intensity, no normalization (for distribution correction), and sophisticated imputation methods (SeqKNN, ImpSeq, MinProb), while generally avoiding simple statistical tools like ANOVA, SAM, and t-test [20].

Ensemble approaches that integrate results from multiple top-performing workflows demonstrate significant benefits, with gains in pAUC up to 4.61% and G-mean up to 11.14% compared to individual workflows [20]. This suggests that while individual workflows may optimize specific aspects, integration provides complementary information that enhances differential proteome coverage.

Experimental Protocols for Method Evaluation

Large-Scale Workflow Benchmarking Protocol

Comprehensive workflow evaluation follows standardized protocols:

• Dataset Curation: Assemble spike-in datasets with known ground truth (24 datasets in recent benchmarks) covering major platforms (DDA, DIA, TMT) [20]
• Workflow Generation: Enumerate combinatorial options across all workflow steps:
  • Quantification: topN, directLFQ, MaxLFQ intensities, spectral counts
  • Normalization: Total intensity, median, quantile, reference, VSN, none
  • Imputation: KNN, MinProb, ImpSeq, SeqKNN, BPCA, RF, none
  • Statistical Testing: t-test, Limma, MSstats, ANOVA, ROTS, Bayesian methods
• Performance Assessment: Apply each workflow to benchmark datasets and evaluate using pAUC, MCC, and G-mean metrics [20]
• Rank Calculation: Convert performance metrics to ranks and compute final workflow ranks by averaging across metrics
• Pattern Mining: Apply frequent pattern mining to identify conserved properties of top-performing workflows

Specialized Method Evaluation Protocols

For specific methodological comparisons:

Imputation vs. Imputation-Free Evaluation [49]:

• Simulate 588 scenarios varying sample size, fold change, and missing value ratio
• Apply five imputation methods (sample minimum, quantile regression, KNN, bPCA, RF) and six imputation-free methods (moderated t-test, two-part tests, SDA, mixture models)
• Evaluate false positive risk and sensitivity across scenarios
• Recommend methods based on balance between sensitivity and false positive control

Single-Cell Proteomics Workflow Assessment [47]:

• Prepare simulated single-cell samples with mixed proteomes (human, yeast, E. coli) in defined ratios
• Acquire data using diaPASEF on timsTOF instruments with low input (200pg)
• Evaluate DIA analysis tools (DIA-NN, Spectronaut, PEAKS) with different spectral library strategies
• Assess subsequent processing: sparsity reduction, imputation, normalization, batch correction
• Measure quantification accuracy against known ratios and data completeness

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 5: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools for Proteomics DE Analysis

Resource Category	Specific Tools/Reagents	Function/Purpose	Application Context
Quantification Software	MaxQuant, FragPipe, DIA-NN, Spectronaut	Raw data processing, peptide identification, intensity quantification	Platform-specific data extraction
Spike-in Standards	UPS1 proteins, yeast backgrounds	Ground truth for benchmarking and normalization	Method evaluation, reference normalization
Statistical Packages	Limma, MSstats, DEqMS, ROTS, MDstatsDIAMS	Differential expression analysis	Statistical testing with various assumptions
Normalization Tools	Normics, VSN, quantile normalization	Technical variation correction	Data preprocessing
Imputation Implementations	KNN, BPCA, MinProb, SeqKNN	Missing value estimation	Handling incomplete data
Benchmarking Resources	OpDEA web resource	Workflow selection guidance	Performance optimization [20]
Spectral Libraries	Sample-specific, public, predicted	Peptide identification reference	DIA data analysis
Batch Correction Tools	ComBat, MNN	Technical batch effect removal	Multi-batch studies

Optimal differential expression analysis in proteomics requires careful consideration of workflow integration across normalization, imputation, and statistical testing steps. Performance depends strongly on data acquisition methods, missing value patterns, and experimental design. Based on comprehensive benchmarking studies, high-performing workflows consistently combine platform-appropriate quantification, conservative normalization, sophisticated imputation for non-extreme missingness, and moderated statistical tests. For challenging contexts like single-cell or metaproteomics with high missingness, imputation-free or specialized methods outperform standard approaches. Ensemble inference that integrates results from multiple top-performing workflows provides complementary benefits, expanding differential proteome coverage beyond individual workflows. Researchers should prioritize method combinations validated in their specific proteomic context rather than relying on individual component performance.

Optimizing Your DE Analysis Pipeline: From Experimental Design to Computational Efficiency

Differential expression (DE) analysis is a cornerstone of modern transcriptomics, enabling researchers to identify genes with significant expression changes between biological conditions. The reliability of these findings, however, is profoundly influenced by pre-processing and analytical decisions. This guide objectively compares the performance of various methodologies at three critical stages: data normalization, missing value imputation, and statistical testing. Based on comprehensive benchmark studies, we provide experimental data and protocols to inform researchers' choices, ensuring robust and reproducible results in drug development and basic research.

Normalization Methods: Bridging Technical Variation

Normalization adjusts raw sequencing data to remove technical biases, enabling valid comparisons between samples. Different methods employ distinct strategies to correct for variables like sequencing depth and gene length.

Performance Comparison of Normalization Methods

Table 1: Comparative performance of RNA-Seq normalization methods across benchmarking studies

Normalization Method	Category	Reported Performance Advantages	Key Limitations
TMM (Trimmed Mean of M-values) [52] [53] [54]	Between-sample	Robust detection power; lower false discoveries; consistent model size in GEM mapping [52] [53]	Sensitive to filtering of low-expressed genes [55]
RLE (Relative Log Expression) [52] [53]	Between-sample	Lower false discoveries; consistent results in GEM mapping; similar performance to TMM [52] [53]	Performance can be influenced by the underlying data composition
DESeq [55]	Between-sample	Properly aligns data distribution across samples; handles dynamic range effectively [55]	---
Median Ratio Normalization (MRN) [52]	Between-sample	Proposed as more robust and consistent; lower false discovery rate; handles transcriptome size bias [52]	A newer method requiring broader validation
FPKM/RPKM [52] [53] [54]	Within-sample	Suitable for within-sample gene expression comparisons [54]	Not ideal for between-sample comparisons; high variability in GEM models [53]
TPM [53] [54]	Within-sample	Corrects for sequencing depth and transcript length; sum of TPMs is constant across samples [54]	High variability in between-sample analyses and GEM mapping [53]
Total Count (TC) [52] [55]	Between-sample	Simple and intuitive approach	Can be biased by a few highly expressed genes; did not align data well in one evaluation [55]
Quantile (Q) [55]	Between-sample	Makes expression distributions identical across samples [54]	Did not align data well in one evaluation; may remove interesting biological variance [55]

Experimental Protocol: Benchmarking Normalization Methods

A robust benchmark to evaluate normalization methods for DE analysis typically follows this workflow, often implemented using R and Bioconductor packages:

Figure 1: Workflow for benchmarking RNA-Seq normalization methods. Performance is assessed using metrics like partial AUC (pAUC) and False Discovery Rate against a ground truth.

Key Steps:

• Dataset Selection: Use a well-characterized dataset with known differentially expressed genes (e.g., from the Microarray Quality Control Project (MAQC) [56] or datasets with spike-in controls [52]).
• Application of Methods: Apply multiple normalization methods (e.g., TMM, RLE, FPKM, TPM) to the same raw count dataset.
• Differential Expression Analysis: Run DE analysis (e.g., using edgeR or DESeq2) on each normalized dataset.
• Performance Metrics: Evaluate methods based on:
  • Specificity and Power: The ability to correctly identify true negatives and true positives [56].
  • False Discovery Rate (FDR) Control: How close the actual FDR is to the nominal FDR level (e.g., 0.05) [56].
  • Area Under the Curve (AUC): The overall performance in distinguishing true positives from false positives across all thresholds. Studies often use the partial AUC (pAUC) for a more focused evaluation [52] [57].

Imputation Methods: Addressing Zero-Inflated Data

Single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) data is characterized by a high number of zero counts ("dropouts"). Imputation aims to distinguish true biological zeros from technical artifacts, but its benefit is context-dependent.

Performance Comparison of Imputation Algorithms

Table 2: Performance of selected scRNA-seq imputation algorithms in downstream applications

Imputation Algorithm	Core Methodology	Impact on Downstream Analyses	Risk of Data Distortion
afMF (adaptive full Matrix Factorization) [58]	Improved matrix factorization	Improved performance in DE (MAST/test), GSEA, cell type annotation, and trajectory inference [58]	Low; generally did not fabricate artefactual structures [58]
ALRA [58]	Randomized low-rank approximation	Improved correlations with ground truth (bulk, protein data); enhanced cell type annotation [58]	Low; maintained data structure in visualizations [58]
scRMD [58]	Robust matrix decomposition	Better performance in DE and GSEA; preserved data structure [58]	Low [58]
MAGIC [58]	Graph-based diffusion	Improved trajectory inference (Monocle3) and cell-cycle scoring [58]	Moderate; can generate unexpected patterns in UMAP [58]
kNN-smoothing [58]	k-Nearest Neighbor smoothing	Enhanced marker gene detection [58]	Moderate; can generate unexpected patterns in UMAP [58]
DCA [58]	Deep count autoencoder	---	Higher; lower accuracy in automatic cell type annotation [58]

Experimental Protocol: Benchmarking Imputation for scRNA-seq

A comprehensive benchmark for imputation methods should evaluate their compatibility with various downstream analytical tasks, as the utility of imputation is highly application-specific [58].

Figure 2: Evaluation framework for scRNA-seq imputation algorithms. Performance is assessed across multiple independent downstream tasks.

Key Steps:

• Data Input: Use multiple real and simulated scRNA-seq datasets with known characteristics or matched ground truth (e.g., CITE-seq data with surface protein expression, or datasets with known cell lineages) [58].
• Pre-screening: Filter out algorithms that perform worse than no imputation ("no-imputation") across basic evaluations to exclude methods that cause severe data distortion [58].
• Comprehensive Evaluation: Apply selected algorithms and evaluate their impact on a wide array of downstream analyses [58]:
  • Differential Expression: Compare the concordance of DE results (using MAST or rank-sum test) from imputed data with bulk RNA-seq results or other ground truths. Calculate metrics like logFC correlation and false positive rates [58].
  • Cell Type Annotation: Measure the accuracy and F1 score of automatic cell type annotation tools (e.g., SCINA, scType) on imputed data [58].
  • Trajectory Inference: Assess the accuracy of predicted pseudotime and branch assignments compared to known time courses or differentiation paths [58].
  • Data Visualization: Inspect PCA and UMAP plots for the introduction of artifactual structures or the loss of genuine biological separation [58].

Statistical Testing and Experimental Design

Choosing Statistical Tests for Differential Expression

The choice of statistical test must account for the data structure. For standard bulk RNA-Seq data, tools based on a negative binomial generalized linear model (e.g., edgeR, DESeq2) are the established standard [55]. However, for emerging data types like spatial transcriptomics (ST), this choice is critical.

Spatial Transcriptomics: Wilcoxon vs. Generalized Score Test (GST)

• Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test: The default in popular tools like Seurat. It is non-parametric and computationally efficient. However, it ignores spatial correlations between spots, leading to inflated Type I error rates (false positives) in the presence of spatial dependencies [59].
• Generalized Score Test (GST): Proposed within the Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) framework to account for spatial correlation. Benchmarking on breast and prostate cancer ST data showed GST provides superior Type I error control and identifies gene sets with more relevant biological pathways (e.g., enriched in cancer-related pathways) compared to the Wilcoxon test [59].

The Critical Role of Biological Replicates

The number of biological replicates is a primary determinant of the replicability and reliability of DE results.

Evidence on Cohort Size and Replicability:

• High False Negative Rates: With small cohorts (e.g., 3 replicates), statistical power is low. This results in low recall, meaning a large proportion of true differentially expressed genes are missed [60] [9].
• Poor Replicability: Results from underpowered experiments are unlikely to replicate well. Subsampling experiments show low overlap in significant DEGs identified from different small cohorts drawn from the same population [60] [9].
• Precision is Variable: While replicability is generally low with small samples, the precision (the fraction of identified DEGs that are true positives) can vary greatly between datasets. Some may maintain high precision, while others suffer from high false positive rates [60] [9].

Recommendations:

• Minimum Replicates: At least 3 biological replicates per condition are required to have sufficient power for complex interactions, but this is a bare minimum [55].
• Robust Results: Studies recommend 6 to 12 biological replicates per condition for robust detection of DEGs, with higher numbers needed to capture the majority of true effects [60] [9].

Table 3: Key research reagents and software solutions for differential expression analysis

Item Name	Function / Application	Relevant Context
ERCC Spike-in Controls [55]	Artificial RNA transcripts used to monitor technical performance, assess sensitivity, and help in normalization.	Added during library preparation to evaluate technical variation.
CITE-seq Data [58]	A multimodal single-cell assay that simultaneously measures transcriptome and surface protein abundance.	Serves as a "ground truth" for benchmarking imputation methods.
edgeR (R/Bioconductor) [52] [55]	A software package for differential expression analysis of count data, using TMM normalization and negative binomial models.	A standard tool for bulk RNA-Seq analysis.
DESeq2 (R/Bioconductor) [53] [55]	A software package for differential expression analysis, using the RLE normalization and negative binomial models.	A standard tool for bulk RNA-Seq analysis.
Seurat (R) [58] [59]	A comprehensive toolkit for the analysis of single-cell and spatial transcriptomics data.	Widely used for scRNA-seq and ST analysis; uses Wilcoxon test by default for DE.
SpatialGEE (R) [59]	An R package implementing the Generalized Score Test (GST) for differential expression in spatial transcriptomics data.	Provides a robust alternative to the Wilcoxon test for spatially correlated data.

Conclusive Recommendations

Based on the consolidated benchmark data, we offer these conclusive recommendations:

• For Bulk RNA-Seq Normalization: Prioritize between-sample methods like TMM (in edgeR) or RLE (in DESeq2). These methods consistently show robust performance, lower false discovery rates, and better control for biases related to transcriptome composition [52] [53] [55].
• For scRNA-Seq Imputation: Use imputation judiciously. Matrix-theory based methods like afMF and ALRA generally show stable performance across various downstream tasks without severe data distortion [58]. Always validate that imputation improves, or does not harm, the specific biological analysis you intend to perform.
• For Spatial Transcriptomics DE Analysis: Move beyond the default Wilcoxon test. To control false positives arising from spatial correlation, employ methods designed for this data type, such as the Generalized Score Test (GST) in the SpatialGEE package [59].
• For Experimental Design: Increase the number of biological replicates. To ensure replicable and reliable results, aim for a minimum of 6, and ideally more than 10, replicates per condition [60] [9]. A simple bootstrapping analysis on pilot data can help estimate the expected replicability and precision for a given cohort size [60] [9].

Differential expression analysis is a cornerstone of modern genomics and proteomics, critical for identifying phenotype-specific biomarkers and drug targets. However, the proliferation of analytical tools and workflows has created a significant challenge: results can vary dramatically depending on the chosen methods. This comparison guide explores how ensemble inference—integrating results from multiple top-performing workflows—emerges as a powerful strategy to overcome methodological inconsistencies and expand differential coverage.

Cutting-edge research reveals a fundamental insight: there is rarely a single "best" workflow for differential expression analysis. Instead, optimal performance is highly dependent on specific data characteristics, including technology platform (e.g., bulk RNA-Seq, scRNA-Seq, or proteomics), sequencing depth, data sparsity, and experimental design [20] [15] [61]. Faced with numerous methodological choices at each step—from normalization and imputation to statistical testing—researchers often select suboptimal workflows, potentially missing crucial biological signals.

Ensemble inference addresses this challenge by combining results from multiple individual workflows. This approach leverages the complementary strengths of different methods, mitigating the risk of false negatives that can occur when relying on a single workflow. Recent large-scale benchmarking studies demonstrate that ensemble methods consistently outperform individual workflows, providing more comprehensive and reliable differential coverage [20] [62].

Experimental Evidence: Quantitative Benefits of Ensemble Approaches

Performance Gains in Proteomics and Transcriptomics

Large-scale benchmarking studies provide compelling evidence for the superiority of ensemble approaches. In proteomics data analysis, an extensive study testing 34,576 combinatorial workflows on 24 gold-standard spike-in datasets found that ensemble inference provided gains in pAUC of up to 4.61% and improvements in G-mean scores of up to 11.14% compared to individual workflows [20]. These metrics indicate both enhanced sensitivity in detecting true positives and better overall balance between sensitivity and specificity.

In single-cell RNA sequencing, benchmarking of 46 differential expression workflows revealed that no single method consistently outperformed all others across different experimental conditions [15]. Performance was significantly influenced by batch effects, sequencing depth, and data sparsity. This variability underscores the value of ensemble methods that can adapt to different data characteristics.

Addressing the Replicability Crisis in Underpowered Studies

RNA-Seq experiments often suffer from limited biological replicates due to financial and practical constraints, leading to concerns about replicability. One study conducted 18,000 subsampled RNA-Seq experiments based on 18 real datasets and found that underpowered experiments with few replicates produce poorly replicable results [9]. While these results aren't necessarily wrong, they exhibit high variability between subsamples. Ensemble approaches help stabilize these results by aggregating information across multiple analytical strategies.

Table 1: Performance Improvements with Ensemble Inference Across Studies

Study Domain	Ensemble Approach	Key Performance Improvement	Reference
Proteomics (24 spike-in datasets)	Integration of top-performing workflows	pAUC improvement up to 4.61%; G-mean improvement up to 11.14%	[20]
Medical datasets (class imbalance)	Differential Evolution-optimized ensemble (OEDE)	Superior AUC, F1-score, and Recall across 4 medical datasets	[62]
Single-cell RNA-seq (46 workflows)	Covariate modeling and batch-effect correction	Improved F0.5-scores and precision-recall for large batch effects	[15]
Drug synergy prediction	Ensemble-based Differential Evolution with SVM	Improved accuracy, RMSE, and correlation coefficient	[63]

Methodological Approaches: Implementing Ensemble Inference

Core Strategies for Ensemble Construction

Research reveals several effective strategies for constructing ensembles in differential analysis:

• Workflow Integration: Combining results from individual top-performing workflows, particularly those utilizing complementary quantification approaches (e.g., topN, directLFQ, MaxLFQ intensities, and spectral counts in proteomics) [20].

• Optimized Weighting: Using evolutionary algorithms like Differential Evolution (DE) to discover optimal ensemble weights that maximize performance metrics such as AUC [62]. This approach effectively balances contributions from different base learners.

• Covariate Modeling: Incorporating batch effects as covariates in statistical models rather than relying solely on batch-corrected data, which has shown superior performance particularly for data with substantial batch effects [15].

• Meta-Analysis Methods: Applying fixed effects models (FEM), random effects models (REM), or weighted Fisher methods (wFisher) to combine statistics or p-values from analyses performed separately on each batch [15].

Practical Implementation Protocol

Based on successful implementations in recent studies, here is a detailed protocol for applying ensemble inference:

Table 2: Experimental Protocol for Ensemble Inference Implementation

Step	Procedure	Parameters & Considerations
1. Workflow Selection	Identify 3-5 high-performing individual workflows based on benchmark studies	Select workflows with complementary strengths; consider normalization, imputation, and DEA methods [20]
2. Base Analysis	Run each selected workflow independently on the target dataset	Apply appropriate FDR correction (e.g., Benjamini-Hochberg with q-value <0.05) [15]
3. Result Integration	Combine results using weighted voting or statistical aggregation	Optimize weights using DE or based on individual workflow performance [62]
4. Validation	Assess ensemble performance using ground truth data when available	Calculate pAUC, G-mean, F-scores; use bootstrapping for reliability estimation [20] [9]

Diagram 1: Ensemble inference workflow integrates results from multiple analytical paths to expand differential coverage.

Computational Tools and Platforms

Researchers implementing ensemble inference can leverage several specialized resources:

• OpDEA: An online resource (http://www.ai4pro.tech:3838/) that guides workflow selection on new datasets based on extensive benchmarking of proteomics data [20].

• Differential Evolution Algorithms: Optimization tools for determining optimal ensemble weights, available in packages like SciPy (Python) or DEoptim (R) [63] [62].

• Benchmarked Workflows: Pre-evaluated workflow combinations for specific data types, including covariate models (MASTCov, ZWedgeR_Cov) for single-cell data with batch effects [15].

• Meta-analysis Packages: R packages such as metafor or metap for implementing fixed effects models, random effects models, and weighted Fisher methods for combining p-values [15].

Validation and Quality Control Reagents

Proper validation of ensemble methods requires specific analytical approaches:

• Gold Standard Spike-in Datasets: Commercially available reference standards (e.g., UPS1 proteins for proteomics) for establishing ground truth in performance evaluation [20].

• Performance Metrics: Specialized statistical measures including partial AUC (pAUC), normalized Matthew's correlation coefficient (nMCC), and geometric mean of specificity and recall (G-mean) for comprehensive evaluation [20].

• Bootstrapping Procedures: Resampling methods to estimate expected replicability and precision for a given dataset, particularly important for underpowered studies [9].

Comparative Analysis: Ensemble vs. Single Workflow Performance

Advantages Across Experimental Conditions

Ensemble methods demonstrate particular strength in challenging analytical scenarios:

• Imbalanced Datasets: In medical datasets with class imbalance ratios ranging from 1.89 to 14.6, optimized ensembles using Differential Evolution (OEDE) consistently outperformed traditional ensemble models in AUC, F1-score, and Recall [62].

• High Data Sparsity: For single-cell data with excessive zeros, ensemble approaches that combine methods handling zeros differently (e.g., models using UMI counts alongside zero proportions) improve sensitivity and reduce false discoveries [61].

• Batch Effects: With substantial batch effects, covariate modeling approaches within ensemble frameworks significantly outperform methods using batch-corrected data [15].

Limitations and Implementation Challenges

Despite their advantages, ensemble methods present certain challenges:

• Computational Intensity: Running multiple workflows requires substantially more computational resources than single-workflow analysis.

• Complex Interpretation: Results from ensemble methods can be more difficult to interpret biologically than those from individual workflows.

• Risk of False Positives: While ensemble methods primarily reduce false negatives, improper implementation can increase false positives, requiring careful threshold setting and validation [20].

• Methodological Development: The field lacks standardized frameworks for conducting ensemble inference, with researchers noting that "further development and evaluation are needed to establish acceptable frameworks" [20].

The field of ensemble inference in differential analysis is rapidly evolving. Promising directions include the development of automated ensemble systems that can intelligently select and weight workflows based on dataset characteristics, increased integration with multi-omics data, and improved statistical frameworks for result integration.

As differential expression analysis continues to be fundamental in biomedical research, ensemble methods offer a robust approach to maximize biological discovery. By leveraging the complementary strengths of multiple workflows, researchers can expand differential coverage beyond the limitations of any single method, leading to more comprehensive and reproducible insights in genomics, proteomics, and drug development research.

Differential expression (DE) analysis is a cornerstone of modern genomics, enabling researchers to identify genes or proteins with significant abundance changes across different experimental conditions. The choice of a DE method can profoundly impact the biological conclusions of a study. As high-throughput technologies evolve, researchers are confronted with a critical computational trilemma: balancing the statistical power to detect true positives, the control of false discoveries, and practical runtime constraints. This guide provides an objective comparison of contemporary DE tools, evaluating their performance across these three competing axes for both bulk RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) and single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) data. The insights herein are framed within the broader thesis that robust biological discovery requires careful selection of analytical methods whose strengths are aligned with specific experimental designs and data characteristics.

Performance Comparison of Differential Expression Tools

The performance of DE tools varies significantly depending on the data modality (e.g., bulk vs. single-cell) and experimental design (e.g., cross-sectional vs. longitudinal). The following tables summarize key findings from recent benchmarks.

Table 1: Comparison of Bulk RNA-Seq Differential Expression Tools

Tool	Core Methodology	Power & FDR Control Profile	Relative Runtime	Best Suited For
DESeq2 [1] [64]	Negative binomial model with empirical Bayes shrinkage	High power, but may trade off specificity (reduced ~70%) for high detection power (>93%) [56]	Moderate	Standard bulk RNA-seq experiments with count data
edgeR [1] [64]	Negative binomial model with empirical Bayes methods	High power (>93%), but with a slightly elevated actual FDR [56]	Moderate	Experiments with complex designs and multiple factors
limma-voom [1]	Linear modeling with precision weights for RNA-seq count data	Good power and FDR control when the mean-variance relationship is properly modeled [1]	Fast	Large-scale studies where runtime is a concern
ALDEx2 [64]	Compositional data analysis using log-ratio transformations	Very high precision (few false positives), but recall depends on sample size [64]	Slow (due to Monte Carlo instances)	Data with severe compositional biases or high false positive concern

Table 2: Comparison of Single-Cell and Longitudinal Differential Expression Tools

Tool	Data Type	Core Methodology	Key Performance Findings	Computational Efficiency
DiSC [65]	scRNA-seq	Joint testing of multiple distributional characteristics with permutation FDR control	Effectively controls FDR, high power; ~100x faster than IDEAS/BSDE [65]	Very Fast
GLIMES [61]	scRNA-seq	Generalized Poisson/Binomial mixed-effects model using absolute UMI counts	Improves sensitivity, reduces false discoveries by avoiding normalization pitfalls [61]	Information Missing
RolDE [57]	Longitudinal Proteomics/Transcriptomics	Composite method (three modules) for robust trend detection	Best overall performance in longitudinal benchmarks, tolerant to missing values [57]	Information Missing
MAST [65]	scRNA-seq	Generalized linear models (Gaussian) with a hurdle component	Can compromise type I error when accounting for within-subject correlation [65]	Information Missing
DEAPR [66]	(Small-n) RNA-seq	Ranks genes by fold-change and expression difference; uses DELV and SRMM	Designed for small experiments (e.g., n=3) to identify reproducible changes [66]	Information Missing

Experimental Protocols for Benchmarking

The performance data presented in the previous section are derived from rigorous benchmarking studies. Understanding their methodologies is crucial for interpreting the results and designing new evaluations.

Benchmarking Single-Cell and Bulk RNA-Seq Tools

A comprehensive evaluation of the scRNA-seq tool DiSC involved several steps to demonstrate its superiority in speed and statistical performance [65]:

• Simulation Studies: Data was simulated under various settings to assess the method's ability to control the False Discovery Rate (FDR) and its statistical power in detecting diverse types of gene expression changes.
• Real-World Data Application: DiSC was applied to large scRNA-seq datasets from studies of COVID-19 severity and Alzheimer's disease. Performance was compared to other state-of-the-art methods (e.g., IDEAS, BSDE) in terms of agreement with existing literature and computational runtime.
• Runtime Assessment: The computational time required by DiSC and competing methods was measured on the same real-world datasets, revealing DiSC to be approximately two orders of magnitude faster [65].

For bulk RNA-seq tools, a typical benchmarking pipeline, as described in one study, includes [1]:

• Preprocessing: Raw sequencing reads undergo quality control with FastQC, adapter and quality trimming with Trimmomatic, and transcript abundance quantification with Salmon.
• Normalization: The Trimmed Mean of M-values (TMM) method is often applied to correct for compositional differences across samples [1].
• Differential Expression Analysis: The normalized data is analyzed using multiple DE tools (e.g., dearseq, voom-limma, edgeR, DESeq2).
• Performance Evaluation: Methods are benchmarked using a combination of real datasets (e.g., from a Yellow Fever vaccine study) and synthetic datasets where the true differentially expressed genes are known. Performance is measured by metrics like precision, recall, and the area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve.

Benchmarking Longitudinal and Proteomics Tools

The evaluation of RolDE and other longitudinal methods was exceptionally thorough, utilizing over 3000 semi-simulated datasets [57]:

• Data Generation: Semi-simulated spike-in proteomics datasets were created based on three foundational proteomics datasets (UPS1, SGSDS, CPTAC). These datasets incorporated a wide variety of linear and non-linear longitudinal trend differences between conditions.
• Performance Metric: The partial area under the ROC curve (pAUC) was calculated for each method across the thousands of simulations to evaluate its ability to rank truly differentially expressed features highly.
• Robustness Testing: The methods were further assessed on their performance in the presence of missing values—a common issue in proteomics data—and on large experimental biological datasets to evaluate the reproducibility and biological relevance of their findings [57].

Diagram 1: A generalized workflow for benchmarking differential expression tools, involving evaluation on both synthetic and real-world data across multiple performance metrics.

The Computational Trilemma in Practice

The trade-offs between power, FDR control, and runtime are not merely theoretical. The choice of method can lead to vastly different biological interpretations.

The Replicability Crisis in Underpowered Studies

A critical, often overlooked aspect of the power-FDR-runtime trade-off is its impact on the replicability of findings. A 2025 study conducted 18,000 subsampled RNA-seq experiments to investigate this issue and found that results from underpowered experiments (with few biological replicates) are unlikely to replicate well [9]. This low replicability persists even when standard tools like DESeq2 or edgeR are used with their default parameters. The study notes that about 50% of human RNA-seq studies use six or fewer replicates, a number often considered insufficient for robust detection of differentially expressed genes [9]. While underpowered studies might still achieve high precision in some datasets, the overall tendency is toward unstable results, highlighting how practical constraints (like sample cost) that limit replicates indirectly exacerbate the computational trilemma.

The Pitfalls of Normalization in scRNA-seq

In scRNA-seq analysis, the common practice of library-size normalization (e.g., CPM) represents a direct trade-off that can sacrifice biological signal for technical homogeneity. Such normalization, designed for bulk RNA-seq, converts unique molecular identifier (UMI) counts into relative abundances, thereby erasing information about the absolute RNA content of cells [61]. This can mask true biological variation, as different cell types have inherently different total RNA contents. For instance, normalization can obscure the fact that secretory epithelial cells and macrophages have significantly higher RNA content than other cell types [61]. Methods like GLIMES attempt to circumvent this trade-off by using raw UMI counts within a mixed-effects model, thereby preserving absolute abundance information and improving biological interpretability [61].

Diagram 2: The core computational trilemma in differential expression analysis. Optimizing for any two of the three goals often requires making a compromise on the third.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Successful differential expression analysis relies on a pipeline of computational "reagents." The table below details key components and their functions.

Table 3: Essential Computational Tools for Differential Expression Analysis

Tool Category	Example Tools	Primary Function	Role in DE Analysis
Quality Control	FastQC [1]	Assesses raw sequence data quality	Identifies sequencing artifacts and biases before analysis
Read Trimming	Trimmomatic [1]	Removes adapter sequences and low-quality bases	Produces clean, high-quality reads for accurate alignment/quantification
Alignment & Quantification	HISAT2 [66], STAR [64], Salmon [1]	Maps reads to a reference genome/transcriptome and estimates gene counts	Generates the count matrix that is the input for DE tools
Normalization	TMM (edgeR) [1], DESeq's median-of-ratios [64]	Adjusts for technical variation (e.g., library size)	Enables fair comparison of expression levels between samples
Differential Expression	DESeq2, edgeR, DiSC, RolDE	Identifies statistically significant expression changes	Core statistical analysis addressing the primary biological question
Power Analysis	PROPER [67]	Evaluates statistical power for experimental design	Helps determine necessary sample size and sequencing depth before data collection

The transition from microarray technology to RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) has revolutionized transcriptomics, offering a higher dynamic range, lower technical variation, and the ability to detect novel transcripts without requiring species-specific probes [68] [69]. However, the analysis of RNA-seq data from non-model organisms presents unique computational challenges not typically encountered with well-characterized model systems. These challenges stem primarily from the absence of complete, well-annotated reference genomes, which are essential for traditional read-mapping and quantification pipelines [68].

The selection of analytical parameters and methods must therefore be carefully tailored to the specific biological context and data availability. This guide objectively compares the performance of various differential expression analysis tools and pipelines, with a specific focus on their applicability to non-model organisms. We synthesize experimental data from multiple studies to provide evidence-based recommendations for researchers working with less-characterized species.

Methodological Approaches for Non-Model Organisms

Reference-Based vs. De Novo Assembly Approaches

For organisms with a available reference genome, the standard analysis workflow involves aligning reads to the genome followed by transcript quantification. However, when a high-quality reference genome is unavailable for a non-model organism, researchers must consider alternative strategies.

• Reference Genome Mapping: This traditional approach uses aligners like HISAT2, GSNAP, Stampy, or TopHat to map sequencing reads to a reference genome [68] [70]. It provides accurate quantification but depends entirely on genome quality and annotation completeness.
• De Novo Assembly: For non-model organisms without reference genomes, de novo assembly using tools like Trinity constructs transcripts directly from sequencing reads [68]. This approach enables transcriptome analysis but may produce fragmented assemblies and requires careful validation.

Table 1: Comparison of Analysis Approaches for Non-Model Organisms

Approach	Requirements	Advantages	Limitations	Suitable Organisms
Reference Genome Mapping	High-quality annotated genome	High accuracy for quantified genes; Established pipelines	Limited to annotated genes; Genome bias	Model organisms (e.g., S. cerevisiae, human, mouse)
Cross-Species Mapping	Related species with genome	Utilizes existing resources	Mapping errors due to divergence; Missing species-specific sequences	Organisms with close sequenced relatives
De Novo Assembly	Sufficient sequencing depth; Computational resources	Species-specific discovery; No reference needed	Assembly fragmentation; High computational demand; Validation challenging	Non-model organisms without reference genomes

Impact of Genetic Variation on Expression Analysis

Genetic variations such as single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and insertions-deletions (indels) between the study organism and any reference genome used can significantly impact expression estimation. Research on Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain CEN.PK 113-7D has demonstrated that alignment to the standard S288c reference genome can introduce biases in gene expression measurements due to genetic differences between strains [68]. This effect is particularly pronounced in non-model organisms, where genetic distance from available reference genomes may be substantial.

Tools like the exvar package have been developed to integrate genetic variant calling (SNPs, indels, and copy number variations) with gene expression analysis, providing a more comprehensive solution for non-model organism studies [71]. This integrated approach helps distinguish true expression differences from artifacts caused by sequence divergence.

Comparative Performance of Differential Expression Tools

Tool Selection Based on Experimental Design

Multiple comprehensive studies have compared the performance of statistical methods for differential expression analysis. The choice of tool should be guided by experimental design, sample size, and data characteristics.

Table 2: Performance Characteristics of Differential Expression Tools

Tool	Statistical Distribution	Normalization Method	Strengths	Sample Size Recommendation
DESeq2	Negative binomial	Median of ratios	Robust with low replicates; Conservative	≥ 3 per condition [72]
edgeR	Negative binomial	TMM	Powerful for large effects; Flexible models	≥ 3 per condition [73] [72]
limma-voom	Log-normal with precision weights	TMM	Excellent for complex designs; Stable	≥ 5 per condition [72]
NOISeq	Non-parametric	RPKM	Good for very small samples; Low false positives	2-3 per condition [68] [73]
SAMseq	Non-parametric with resampling	Internal	Robust to outliers; Good power	≥ 5 per condition [72]
baySeq	Negative binomial with Bayesian	Internal	Complex designs; Posterior probabilities	≥ 3 per condition [68] [73]

A benchmark study evaluating dearseq, voom-limma, edgeR, and DESeq2 highlighted that method performance varies significantly with sample size, with different tools showing advantages under different experimental conditions [1]. For non-model organisms where sample availability is often limited, this selection becomes critically important.

Normalization Methods for Non-Model Organisms

Normalization accounts for technical variations in sequencing depth and RNA composition, making expression values comparable across samples. The choice of normalization method significantly impacts differential expression results, particularly for non-model organisms where assumptions about transcriptome characteristics may not hold.

The Trimmed Mean of M-values (TMM) method, implemented in edgeR, corrects for differences in library size and composition by assuming most genes are not differentially expressed [73] [72]. Comparative studies have shown that TMM and the geometric mean approach used by DESeq2 generally perform well across diverse conditions [56]. However, for non-model organisms with unusual transcriptome characteristics (e.g., high proportions of very lowly or highly expressed genes), per-gene normalization methods like Med-pgQ2 and UQ-pgQ2 may offer improved specificity while maintaining detection power [56].

Experimental Design and Workflow Considerations

Comprehensive RNA-seq Analysis Pipeline

A robust analytical pipeline for non-model organism RNA-seq data incorporates multiple quality control and processing steps. The following workflow diagram illustrates the key decision points and analysis path:

Species Support in Integrated Analysis Packages

Recent developments in bioinformatics software have produced integrated packages that support multiple species, facilitating the analysis of non-model organisms. The exvar package, for instance, provides comprehensive analysis functionality for eight species: Homo sapiens, Mus musculus, Arabidopsis thaliana, Drosophila melanogaster, Danio rerio, Rattus norvegicus, Caenorhabditis elegans, and Saccharomyces cerevisiae [71]. Such tools streamline the analytical process by combining preprocessing, gene expression analysis, genetic variant calling, and visualization in a unified framework.

Key Parameter Optimization Strategies

Alignment and Mapping Parameters

For non-model organisms where cross-species alignment to a related reference genome is necessary, parameter optimization becomes crucial. Key considerations include:

• Mismatch allowances: Increasing the number of permitted mismatches to account for greater genetic distance
• Seed lengths: Adjusting seed lengths for alignment to balance sensitivity and specificity
• Intron size predictions: Modifying expected intron sizes based on related species
• Strandedness parameters: Correctly specifying library preparation protocols

Research has demonstrated that the choice of aligner significantly impacts differential expression results, with performance varying across organisms and experimental conditions [68] [74]. For non-model organisms, exploratory analysis with multiple aligners and parameter settings is recommended when possible.

Addressing Sample Size Limitations

Small sample sizes remain common in studies of non-model organisms due to limited availability or high costs. Performance evaluations have revealed that very small sample sizes (n < 3) pose problems for all differential expression methods, and results obtained under such conditions should be interpreted with caution [72]. When sample sizes are unavoidably small, non-parametric methods like NOISeq may provide more reliable results due to fewer distributional assumptions [73].

Validation and Benchmarking Approaches

Experimental Validation Strategies

Independent validation of computational findings is particularly important for non-model organisms, where analytical pipelines may introduce unanticipated biases. The study on allergic asthma provides an exemplary validation approach, using quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR), immunohistochemistry, and Western blot analysis to confirm transcriptomic findings [70]. For non-model organisms, qRT-PCR validation requires careful selection of reference genes, which should be stable across experimental conditions.

Pipeline Performance Assessment

Systematic comparisons of RNA-seq procedures have evaluated 192 alternative analytical pipelines combining different trimming algorithms, aligners, counting methods, and normalization approaches [74]. These studies highlight that optimal pipeline configurations are context-dependent, reinforcing the need for species-specific optimization. Benchmarking against housekeeping genes or spiked-in controls can help assess pipeline performance for non-model organisms.

The Scientist's Toolkit for Non-Model Organism Studies

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Category	Tool/Reagent	Specific Function	Considerations for Non-Model Organisms
RNA Extraction	TRIzol/RNeasy Kits	RNA purification and quality control	Optimize protocols for specific tissue types; Check RNA integrity
Library Prep	NEBNext Ultra RNA Library Prep Kit	cDNA library construction	Consider stranded protocols for annotation improvement
Sequencing	Illumina Platforms (NovaSeq 6000)	High-throughput sequencing	Adjust sequencing depth based on transcriptome complexity
Quality Control	FastQC/rfastp	Read quality assessment	Identify species-specific biases or contaminants
Trimming	Trimmomatic/Cutadapt/BBDuk	Adapter removal and quality trimming	Conservative trimming preserves diversity in novel transcripts
Alignment	HISAT2/GSNAP/Stampy	Read mapping to reference	Adjust parameters for evolutionary distance in cross-species mapping
De Novo Assembly	Trinity	Transcriptome construction without reference	Requires high memory; Multiple k-mer strategies recommended
Variant Calling	VariantTools/VariantAnnotation	Genetic polymorphism identification	Crucial for distinguishing true expression from mapping artifacts
Differential Expression	DESeq2/edgeR/limma/NOISeq	Statistical analysis of expression changes	Tool selection depends on sample size and expression characteristics
Functional Analysis	ClusterProfiler	Gene ontology and pathway enrichment	Limited for non-model organisms; Consider orthology-based approaches

The analysis of RNA-seq data from non-model organisms requires careful consideration of species-specific factors throughout the analytical pipeline. Method selection should be guided by the availability of genomic resources, sample size considerations, and the specific biological questions under investigation. Reference-based approaches provide the most accurate results when high-quality genomes are available, while de novo assembly offers a viable alternative for organisms without such resources.

Cross-species alignment remains challenging but can be optimized through parameter adjustments that account for evolutionary distance. Validation of findings through orthogonal methods is particularly important for non-model organisms, where analytical artifacts may be more prevalent. As bioinformatics tools continue to evolve, integrated packages like exvar that support multiple species and combine various analysis types will significantly enhance our ability to extract meaningful biological insights from non-model organism transcriptomics.

Benchmarking DE Tool Performance: Accuracy, Robustness, and Reproducibility on Gold-Standard Data

Differential expression (DE) analysis is a cornerstone of transcriptomics research, enabling the identification of genes with significant expression changes between experimental conditions. The choice of statistical tools and methods for DE analysis directly impacts the reliability of biological conclusions, especially in downstream applications like drug target discovery. A performance metrics framework—encompassing true positive rates (TPR), false discovery rate (FDR) control, and area under the precision-recall curve (pAUPR)—provides an empirical basis for selecting the optimal tool for a given experimental design. This guide synthesizes evidence from benchmarking studies to objectively compare tool performance, detailing the experimental protocols that generate the supporting data. The focus is on providing a structured, data-driven resource for scientists navigating the complex landscape of DE analysis tools.

Quantitative Performance Comparison of Differential Expression Tools

Performance Based on Replication and Experimental Design

The number of biological replicates and the complexity of the experimental design are critical factors determining the performance of DE tools. Benchmarking studies consistently show that performance varies significantly with replication.

Table 1: Tool Performance Based on Number of Biological Replicates (Bulk RNA-seq Two-Group Comparison)

Tool / Pipeline	3 Replicates (TPR)	6-12 Replicates (Recommended Tool)	>12 Replicates (Recommended Tool)	Key Performance Characteristic
edgeR	20-40% TPR for all DE genes [75] [76]	Superior TPR [75] [76]	-	Better true positive rate in mid-replicate range [75] [76]
DESeq/DESeq2	20-40% TPR for all DE genes [75] [76]	-	Superior performance, minimizing false positives [75] [76]	Better at minimizing false positives with high replication [75] [76]
NOISeq	-	-	-	Lower false positives with low sequencing depth; less sensitive to gene length bias [77]
TCC (EEE-E pipeline)	-	Recommended for data with replicates [78]	-	Multi-step normalization (DEGES) performs well in multi-group comparisons [78]
TCC (SSS-S pipeline)	-	Recommended for data without replicates [78]	-	Multi-step normalization (DEGES) performs well in multi-group comparisons [78]

For complex experimental designs like multi-group and time-course analyses, the optimal tool choice shifts. In time-course analyses, classical pairwise comparison tools (e.g., edgeR, DESeq2) can outperform dedicated time-course methods on short time series (<8 time points), with the exception of ImpulseDE2 [79]. For longer time series, dedicated tools like splineTC and maSigPro show better overall performance [79]. In multi-group comparisons (e.g., three-group data), the DEGES-based pipelines in the TCC package (e.g., EEE-E, SSS-S) perform comparably to or better than other methods [78].

Performance in Single-Cell RNA-seq and High-Batch-Effect Scenarios

Single-cell RNA-seq (scRNA-seq) data introduces challenges like high sparsity, dropout events, and multimodality. Performance metrics must account for these distinct features.

Table 2: Tool Performance for Single-Cell RNA-seq Data Under Different Conditions

Tool / Workflow	High Depth Data (e.g., Depth-77)	Low Depth Data (e.g., Depth-4/10)	Data with Substantial Batch Effects	Key Characteristic
MAST	High F-score & pAUPR [15]	Good performance [15]	MAST_Cov (covariate model) is a top performer [15]	Model-based; benefits from covariate adjustment [15]
limmatrend	High F-score & pAUPR [15]	Good performance, among the best for low depth [15]	limmatrend_Cov improves performance [15]	Robust across depths; benefits from covariate adjustment [15]
DESeq2	High F-score & pAUPR [15]	Good performance [15]	DESeq2_Cov improves performance [15]	Benefits from covariate adjustment for batch effects [15]
Wilcoxon Test	Relatively lower performance [15]	Distinctly enhanced performance for low depth [15]	-	Non-parametric; performance improves as depth decreases [15]
LogN_FEM	-	Among the best for very low depths [15]	-	Fixed effects model on log-normalized data [15]
Pseudobulk Methods	Good pAUPR for small batch effects [15]	-	Worst performance for large batch effects [15]	Poor performance with large batch effects [15]
SigEMD	Powerful performance in precision, sensitivity, specificity [80]	-	-	Combines imputation, regression, and Earth Mover's Distance [80]
DiSC	-	-	-	Fast individual-level DE; ~100x faster than some state-of-art [65]

A critical finding is that the use of batch-effect-corrected (BEC) data rarely improves DE analysis compared to using covariate modeling (e.g., including batch as a covariate in the model) [15]. For large batch effects, workflows like MASTCov and ZWedgeR_Cov (using observation weights from ZINB-WaVE) are among the highest performers [15].

Experimental Protocols for Benchmarking

The comparative data presented in this guide are derived from rigorous, methodical experiments. Understanding their protocols is essential for interpreting the results and designing new evaluations.

Protocol 1: Bulk RNA-seq Simulation with Realistic Read Mapping

This protocol, used to compare tools like DESeq and NOISeq, focuses on creating a realistic simulation that incorporates the entire RNA-Seq process [77].

• Step 1: Define Reference Transcriptome. The entire set of protein-coding transcripts from a reference genome (e.g., mouse) is used, excluding alternative splicing forms to simplify the simulation [77].
• Step 2: Assign Expression Levels. Each gene is randomly assigned a baseline expression level from a Gamma distribution, with parameters chosen to mimic real RNA-Seq data distributions. A defined percentage of genes (e.g., 10%) are designated as over-expressed or under-expressed in the experimental condition, with fold-changes randomly drawn from a range (e.g., 1.1 to 5.0) [77].
• Step 3: Model Biological and Technical Variation. Biological variation between replicates is modeled using a Gamma distribution with a specified coefficient of variation (e.g., 0.33 for moderate, 0.67 for large variation). Technical variation is then introduced via a Poisson distribution. The final expression level is drawn from Pois(λ_i), where λ_i is the biological variation component [77].
• Step 4: Generate and Map Short Reads. The number of short reads for each gene is set to be proportional to its expression level and length. These reads are generated and then mapped back to the reference transcriptome using an aligner like SOAP2. Critically, only uniquely mapped reads are retained, reflecting common practice [77].
• Step 5: Perform Differential Expression Analysis. The resulting count tables are used as input for the DE tools being evaluated (e.g., DESeq, NOISeq). Performance is assessed by comparing the list of genes identified as DE against the known truth from Step 2 [77].

The following diagram illustrates this comprehensive workflow:

Protocol 2: Single-Cell RNA-seq Benchmarking with Model-Based Simulation

This protocol leverages the splatter R package to simulate scRNA-seq count data based on a negative binomial model, allowing for controlled assessment of parameters like batch effects and sequencing depth [15].

• Step 1: Parameter Estimation. Parameters for the simulation (e.g., mean expression, dispersion, dropout rate) are estimated from a real scRNA-seq dataset to ensure the simulated data reflects biological reality [15].
• Step 2: Introduce Experimental Conditions. The simulation framework is used to define two or more cell groups (e.g., case vs. control). A specific percentage of genes (e.g., 20%) are programmed to be differentially expressed between these groups [15].
• Step 3: Introduce Batch Effects. Batch effects are introduced as an additional factor in the simulation. The magnitude of these effects can be controlled to simulate "small" or "large" batch effect scenarios [15].
• Step 4: Adjust Sequencing Depth. To simulate low-depth data (e.g., from high-throughput protocols), the counts are down-sampled to achieve a target average number of non-zero counts per gene (e.g., 4 or 10) after gene filtering [15].
• Step 5: Apply DE Workflows. Multiple DE workflows are run on the simulated data. This includes testing tools on uncorrected data, batch-effect-corrected data, and using covariate models that include batch as a variable [15].
• Step 6: Calculate Performance Metrics. For each workflow, the F-score (particularly F0.5-score, which weighs precision higher) and the partial Area Under the Precision-Recall Curve (pAUPR) for recall rates <0.5 are calculated. These metrics are used to rank the workflows [15].

Protocol 3: Evaluation of FDR Control Methods

This protocol assesses the ability of various FDR-controlling methods to maintain the specified false discovery rate while maximizing power, using both simulated and "spike-in" data [81].

• Step 1: Data Setup. A dataset with a known ground truth is prepared. This can be a simulated dataset or a real dataset (e.g., RNA-seq data from biological replicates in a single condition) where differential signal is artificially added to a subset of genes to create "true positives" [81].
• Step 2: Generate P-Values and Covariates. For each gene, a p-value from a DE test (e.g., from a tool like DESeq2) and an informative covariate (e.g., gene length, mean expression) are collected. The covariate should be independent of the p-value under the null hypothesis [81].
• Step 3: Apply FDR-Controlling Methods. A suite of classic (e.g., Benjamini-Hochberg, Storey's q-value) and modern (e.g., IHW, BL, AdaPT) FDR-controlling methods are applied. Modern methods are run with both the informative covariate and an uninformative random covariate [81].
• Step 4: Assess FDR Control and Power. The actual FDR achieved by each method is calculated based on the known truth. The number of true positives discovered at a nominal FDR threshold (e.g., 5%) is used to measure power. Methods are compared to determine which successfully control the FDR at the specified level while maximizing power [81].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Reagents and Computational Solutions

This section details essential materials and software used in the benchmarking experiments, providing a resource for researchers seeking to replicate or extend these analyses.

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Differential Expression Benchmarking

Item Name	Type	Function in Evaluation	Example Use Case
splatter R Package [15]	Software / Simulation Tool	Simulates realistic scRNA-seq count data using a negative binomial model.	Generating benchmark data with known DE genes and controlled batch effects for tool comparison [15].
SOAP2 [77]	Software / Aligner	Aligns short reads to a reference transcriptome during in-silico RNA-seq simulation.	Mapping simulated short reads in bulk RNA-seq benchmarking protocols; used with unique mapping requirement [77].
ZINB-WaVE [15]	Software / Observation Weights	Provides observation weights to account for dropout events in scRNA-seq data.	Unlocking bulk RNA-seq tools (e.g., edgeR, DESeq2) for single-cell analysis by supplying zero-inflation weights [15].
Surrogate Variable Analysis (SVA) [82]	Software / Statistical Method	Estimates and adjusts for hidden factors (e.g., batch effects, unknown confounders) in DE analysis.	Integrated with variable selection methods (FSR) to improve DE identification in the presence of unmeasured artifacts [82].
False Discovery Rate (FDR)	Statistical Concept / Metric	The expected proportion of false discoveries among all discoveries. Core to multiple testing correction.	Controlled at a specified level (e.g., 5%) by DE tools and dedicated FDR methods (e.g., IHW, BL) to ensure result reliability [81].
In silico Spike-in Dataset [81]	Data / Benchmark Resource	A dataset where true positives are known by design, created by adding artificial signal to a real null dataset.	Serving as a gold standard for evaluating the specificity and FDR control of DE methods and FDR-controlling procedures [81].

The performance of differential expression tools is not absolute but is contingent on the specific experimental context. Key findings indicate that for bulk RNA-seq with few replicates, edgeR is often superior, while DESeq excels with higher replication. For single-cell data, MAST, limmatrend, and DESeq2 perform robustly, especially when batch is included as a covariate in the model. The use of batch-effect-corrected data is generally not recommended over direct covariate modeling for DE analysis. Finally, modern FDR-control methods that leverage informative covariates (e.g., IHW) can provide increased power without compromising false discovery control. By applying these evidence-based guidelines, researchers can make informed decisions, thereby enhancing the reliability and reproducibility of their transcriptomic studies.

Differential expression (DE) analysis is a fundamental step in interpreting RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) data, enabling researchers to identify genes with statistically significant changes in expression levels between biological conditions. The selection of an appropriate statistical tool is critical, as it directly impacts the reliability and reproducibility of subsequent biological conclusions. This guide provides an objective comparison of the performance of established DE tools—DESeq2, edgeR, and limma-voom—framed within the broader context of methodological research on tool evaluation. It synthesizes evidence from large-scale benchmarking studies to elucidate the conditions under which these tools show strong agreement and where notable discrepancies arise, offering actionable insights for researchers and drug development professionals.

Statistical Foundations of Major DE Tools

The three most widely-used tools for bulk RNA-seq DE analysis—limma, DESeq2, and edgeR—are built on distinct statistical frameworks, which account for their differing performance characteristics [24].

The following table summarizes their core approaches:

Aspect	limma	DESeq2	edgeR
Core Statistical Approach	Linear modeling with empirical Bayes moderation of standard errors [24]	Negative binomial generalized linear models (GLMs) with empirical Bayes shrinkage of dispersion and fold changes [24] [27]	Negative binomial GLMs with flexible dispersion estimation options (common, trended, tagwise) [24]
Data Transformation	voom transforms counts to log-CPM values and calculates precision weights [24]	Uses internal normalization based on geometric means; works directly on counts [24]	Typically uses TMM normalization and works on counts; can also be used with log-CPM [24]
Key Strengths	High efficiency with complex designs and large sample sizes; integration with other omics data [24]	Strong false discovery rate (FDR) control; automatic outlier detection and independent filtering [24] [27]	High efficiency with small sample sizes; flexible modeling with quasi-likelihood (QL) or exact tests [24]
Ideal Sample Size	≥3 replicates per condition, excels with more [24]	≥3 replicates, performs well with more [24]	≥2 replicates, highly efficient for small samples [24]

A key difference lies in how they model variance: DESeq2 and edgeR directly model count data using the negative binomial distribution, while limma employs a linear model on transformed data with empirical Bayes moderation to improve variance estimates for genes with limited information [24]. The quasi-likelihood (QL) method in edgeR is a more conservative pipeline designed to provide more rigorous FDR control by accounting for uncertainty in dispersion estimation [83].

Performance Benchmarking: Agreement and Discrepancies

Concordance in Gene Calls

Large-scale benchmarks reveal that while the sets of significant DEGs identified by different tools are not identical, they often show substantial overlap, particularly for the most strongly differentially expressed genes.

• High Overlap in Calls: A benchmark analysis of the Bottomly et al. mouse RNA-seq dataset found that in a 3 vs. 3 sample comparison, DESeq2 and edgeR had approximately 90% overlap in their respective DEG lists [27].
• Context-Dependent Concordance: A separate study noted that while edgeR identified 500 significant genes and DESeq2 identified 1500 in the same dataset, the 500 genes found by edgeR were almost entirely a subset of the DESeq2 findings [83]. This pattern suggests that a core set of high-confidence DEGs is consistently detected, while tools differ in their power to detect more subtle changes.
• Agreement with limma-voom: The overlap between the GLM-based methods (DESeq2, edgeR) and limma-voom can be lower (around 60% in some small-sample comparisons), but this often occurs because limma-voom calls a more conservative, smaller set of genes that is largely contained within the larger sets from DESeq2 or edgeR [27].

Quantitative Performance Comparison

The performance of these tools has been quantitatively assessed in multiple studies using metrics like sensitivity (the ability to find true DEGs) and FDR control (the proportion of falsely identified DEGs). The following table synthesizes key findings from benchmarks:

Performance Metric	DESeq2	edgeR	limma-voom	Notes & Context
False Discovery Rate (FDR) Control	Generally close to target FDR [27]	Generally close to target FDR; QL method can be more conservative [83] [27]	Can be conservative, often under nominal FDR [27]	All methods generally provide good FDR control, but their conservativeness varies.
Sensitivity (Power)	High sensitivity, especially with moderate to large sample sizes [24] [27]	High sensitivity, particularly for low-count genes and small samples [24] [27]	Can have reduced sensitivity with small n, small FC, or low counts [27]	Sensitivity is highly dependent on sample size (n), effect size (fold-change, FC), and count depth.
Sample Size Recommendation	Performs well with ≥3 replicates, improves with more [24]	Efficient even with 2 replicates, robust with small samples [24]	Requires at least 3 replicates for reliable variance estimation [24]	A benchmark by Schurch et al. recommends at least 6 replicates for robust detection, and 12 to find the majority of DEGs [60].
Impact of Default Settings	Automatic filtering and outlier handling can increase gene calls [27]	Different dispersion estimation methods (e.g., robust=TRUE) can affect results [83]	CPM filtering is critical for good performance [27]	Default settings contribute to differences. DESeq2's automatic filters can explain larger gene lists compared to edgeR in some analyses [27].

The Critical Role of Sample Size and Replicability

A paramount factor influencing both the performance and the agreement between tools is sample size. A 2025 study on replicability highlighted that underpowered RNA-seq experiments with small cohort sizes (e.g., fewer than five replicates) produce results that are unlikely to replicate well [60]. This low replicability is a property of the data itself rather than a flaw in any specific method.

• Precision vs. Recall: The study found that while underpowered experiments have low recall (they miss many true DEGs), about 10 out of 18 datasets still achieved high median precision (most of the called DEGs were likely true positives) with more than five replicates [60].
• A Widespread Issue: Financial and practical constraints often limit cohort sizes, with about 50% of human RNA-seq studies using six or fewer replicates per condition [60]. This practice increases the risk of both false positives and false negatives.
• Recommendation: To ensure robust and replicable results, benchmarks consistently recommend using at least six biological replicates per condition, increasing to ten or twelve when comprehensive detection of DEGs is crucial [60].

Experimental Protocols for Benchmarking

To ensure fair and accurate comparisons, benchmarking studies follow rigorous experimental protocols. The workflow below outlines the key stages, from data preparation to evaluation, commonly used in studies such as those by Schurch et al. and Degen & Medo [60] [27].

Data Preparation and Quantification

The initial phase focuses on generating a high-quality count matrix, which is the input for all DE tools.

• Quality Control & Trimming: Raw sequencing reads (FASTQ files) are first assessed for quality using tools like FastQC to identify sequencing artifacts and biases. Trimmomatic is then used to trim low-quality bases and adapter sequences, producing clean reads [1].
• Alignment & Quantification: Cleaned reads are aligned to a reference genome using a splice-aware aligner like STAR. These alignments are then used to estimate transcript and gene-level abundances. A best-practice hybrid approach uses STAR for alignment and quality control (QC) metrics, followed by Salmon (in alignment-based mode) to perform quantification that robustly handles uncertainty in read assignment [84]. This process generates the final count matrix, where rows represent genes and columns represent samples.

Defining Ground Truth and Subsampling

A critical challenge in benchmarking is knowing the "true" set of differentially expressed genes in real data. Studies employ creative strategies to overcome this.

• Held-Out Set Method: One common approach is to use a large dataset where a consensus set of DEGs from the full dataset is treated as a proxy for the ground truth. The benchmarking analysis then involves repeatedly drawing small, random subsamples (e.g., 3 vs. 3 samples) from the large dataset and comparing the DEGs identified in the subsample to the consensus set from the held-out full dataset [27]. This allows for the calculation of sensitivity and precision.
• Self-Consistency & Null Comparisons: Specificity and FDR control can be assessed by performing DE analysis on random splits within the same biological condition, where no true DEGs are expected [27]. The distribution of p-values from these null comparisons should be uniform.

Tool Execution and Evaluation

The core of the benchmark involves running multiple DE tools on the subsampled datasets.

• Consistent Filtering: All tools are applied to the same set of filtered count matrices. It is crucial to apply appropriate low-expression filters tailored to each tool's expectations (e.g., CPM filtering for edgeR and limma-voom) to ensure a fair comparison [27].
• Performance Metrics: For each tool and subsample, metrics like the False Discovery Rate (FDR), Sensitivity (Recall), and Precision are calculated against the held-out consensus set. The results are then aggregated over thousands of such subsampling iterations to provide robust performance estimates across different sample sizes and data characteristics [60] [27].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

The following table details key software solutions and resources essential for conducting a robust differential expression analysis, as featured in the benchmarking experiments cited.

Tool / Resource	Function / Purpose	Relevance to DE Analysis
STAR	Spliced alignment of RNA-seq reads to a reference genome.	Generates alignment files (BAM) used for quantification and quality control, providing crucial data for pipeline QC [84].
Salmon	High-performance, accuracy-aware quantification of transcript abundances from RNA-seq data.	Produces gene-level count estimates, handling uncertainty in read assignment; can operate with or without prior alignment [84] [1].
R / Bioconductor	An open-source programming language and software ecosystem for statistical computing and genomic data analysis.	The primary platform for running DESeq2, edgeR, and limma; provides the environment for statistical testing and data visualization [24].
DESeq2	Differential gene expression analysis based on a negative binomial generalized linear model.	One of the core tools being benchmarked; known for its strong FDR control and automatic independent filtering [24] [27].
edgeR	Differential expression analysis of RNA-seq expression profiles with a wide range of statistical methods.	One of the core tools being benchmarked; valued for its efficiency with small samples and flexible dispersion estimation [24] [27].
limma	Linear models for microarray and RNA-seq data, often used with the voom transformation.	One of the core tools being benchmarked; excels in computational efficiency and handling complex experimental designs [24] [27].
FastQC	A quality control tool for high-throughput sequencing data.	Provides an initial assessment of raw sequencing data quality, identifying potential issues that could bias downstream results [1].
Trimmomatic	A flexible read-trimming tool for Illumina NGS data.	Removes low-quality bases and adapter sequences, ensuring that quantification is based on clean, high-quality data [1].
nf-core/rnaseq	A community-built, peer-reviewed Nextflow pipeline for RNA-seq analysis.	Automates the entire workflow from raw FASTQ files to count matrix, ensuring reproducibility and best practices in data preparation [84].

Synthesizing evidence from large-scale comparisons leads to the following actionable recommendations for researchers:

• For typical studies with adequate replication (n ≥ 6), DESeq2, edgeR, and limma-voom are all excellent choices that show substantial agreement. The choice can be based on secondary factors: use DESeq2 for strong, automated FDR control and outlier handling; choose edgeR for maximum flexibility in statistical modeling or when analyzing data with many low-count genes; and opt for limma-voom for complex experimental designs or when analyzing hundreds of samples for superior computational speed [24] [27].
• For studies with very small sample sizes (n < 5), exercise extreme caution. While edgeR is often considered efficient for small n, no tool can reliably overcome the fundamental lack of power. In such cases, the quasi-likelihood (QL) method in edgeR may offer more conservative and potentially more reproducible results [83]. Furthermore, employing a bootstrapping procedure, as suggested by Degen & Medo, can help estimate the expected replicability and precision of your results [60].
• Ensure robust data preprocessing by following a standardized pipeline like nf-core/rnaseq and applying tool-specific recommendations for filtering lowly expressed genes. This ensures a fair foundation for comparison and maximizes the power of your analysis [84] [27].

In conclusion, while the leading differential expression tools demonstrate reassuring concordance on high-confidence signals, their discrepancies often illuminate their unique strengths and the inherent statistical challenges of RNA-seq data. The most critical factor for reliable DE analysis remains a well-designed experiment with sufficient biological replication. The choice of tool should then be an informed decision based on the specific context of the study's sample size, biological questions, and computational resources.

The replication crisis represents a fundamental challenge across scientific disciplines, but it poses particular threats in transcriptomics and proteomics where complex data generation and analysis pipelines introduce numerous potential failure points. The core of this crisis in differential expression analysis stems from technical variability, methodological choices, and the inherent biological disconnect between mRNA and protein abundances. While transcriptomics reveals the first layer of cellular instruction, proteomics provides the functional translation of the genome, reflecting not only genetic information but also environmental influences, post-translational modifications, and molecular interactions that together determine cellular behavior [85].

Recognizing that abundance of either molecule is not reliably predicted by the other has been a critical advancement [86]. Dynamic mRNA-protein relationships are influenced by factors including mRNA stability, localization, trafficking, translation, and degradation, ultimately leading to discrepancies in their levels [86]. This complexity necessitates rigorous benchmarking of analytical tools and standardized experimental protocols to enhance reproducibility. This article provides a comprehensive comparison of differential expression tools and spatial technologies, offering experimental frameworks and resource guidelines to help researchers navigate the reproducibility landscape in transcriptomics and proteomics.

Benchmarking Differential Expression & Clustering Tools

Performance Evaluation of scRNA-seq Clustering Algorithms

Single-cell RNA sequencing has revealed profound cellular heterogeneity, but the clustering algorithms used to identify cell populations vary significantly in performance. A comprehensive 2025 benchmark evaluation of 28 computational algorithms on 10 paired transcriptomic and proteomic datasets revealed modality-specific strengths and limitations [87]. The study evaluated methods based on Adjusted Rand Index (ARI), Normalized Mutual Information (NMI), clustering accuracy, purity, peak memory, and running time.

Table 1: Top-Performing Single-Cell Clustering Algorithms Across Modalities

Rank	Transcriptomic Data	Proteomic Data	Key Strengths
1	scDCC	scAIDE	Excellent generalization across omics
2	scAIDE	scDCC	Superior clustering accuracy
3	FlowSOM	FlowSOM	Excellent robustness and performance balance
4	CarDEC	SHARP	Strong transcriptomic performance
5	PARC	scDeepCluster	Memory-efficient for proteomic data

The analysis revealed that scDCC, scAIDE, and FlowSOM demonstrated consistent top performance across both transcriptomic and proteomic modalities, though in slightly different orders of effectiveness [87]. This cross-modal robustness is particularly valuable for integrated analysis approaches. For researchers prioritizing computational efficiency, community detection-based methods like SHARP and MarkovHC offered favorable trade-offs between performance and resource requirements [87].

Differential Expression Analysis for Bulk RNA-seq

For bulk RNA-seq differential expression analysis, a rigorous pipeline combined FastQC, Trimmomatic, and Salmon for preprocessing and quantification, followed by evaluation of four differential analysis methods: dearseq, voom-limma, edgeR, and DESeq2 [1]. The benchmarking utilized both real datasets (Yellow Fever vaccine study) and synthetic datasets to evaluate performance, particularly with small sample sizes.

The study implemented the Trimmed Mean of M-values (TMM) normalization method to correct for compositional differences across samples [1]. A critical finding was the essential nature of proper batch effect identification and correction to ensure reliable downstream analyses. In their real dataset application, the dearseq method identified 191 differentially expressed genes over time, demonstrating its utility in longitudinal study designs [1].

Systematic frameworks like the Differential Expression Enrichment Tool (DEET) have been developed to enhance reproducibility by enabling researchers to compare their differential expression results against a compendium of 3,162 uniformly processed human DEG comparisons [88]. Such resources facilitate validation and context for novel findings.

Experimental Benchmarking of Spatial Transcriptomics Platforms

Comparative Performance of Imaging Spatial Transcriptomics Platforms

Spatial transcriptomics has emerged as a crucial bridge between single-cell resolution and tissue context, but platform selection significantly impacts results. A 2025 systematic benchmark of three commercial imaging spatial transcriptomics (iST) platforms—10X Xenium, Vizgen MERSCOPE, and Nanostring CosMx—was conducted on serial sections from tissue microarrays containing 17 tumor and 16 normal tissue types [89].

Table 2: Performance Benchmarking of FFPE-Compatible Spatial Transcriptomics Platforms

Platform	Signal Amplification Method	Transcripts per Gene	Cell Type Clustering	Key Finding
10X Xenium	Padlock probes with rolling circle amplification	Highest	Slightly more clusters than MERSCOPE	Higher transcripts without sacrificing specificity
Nanostring CosMx	Branch chain hybridization	High	Slightly more clusters than MERSCOPE	Concordance with orthogonal scRNA-seq
Vizgen MERSCOPE	Direct probe hybridization with tiling	Lower	Fewer clusters	Varying false discovery rates and segmentation errors

The study found that Xenium consistently generated higher transcript counts per gene without sacrificing specificity [89]. Both Xenium and CosMx demonstrated strong concordance with orthogonal single-cell transcriptomics data, validating their biological accuracy. All three platforms successfully performed spatially resolved cell typing but with varying sub-clustering capabilities and segmentation error frequencies.

Standardized Experimental Protocol for Spatial Transcriptomics Benchmarking

The benchmarking study employed a rigorous methodology to ensure fair comparison across platforms [89]:

• Sample Preparation: Three previously generated multi-tissue TMAs from clinical discarded tissue were used, including tumor TMAs with 170 cores from 7 cancer types and 48 cores from 19 cancer types, plus a normal tissue TMA with 45 cores spanning 16 normal tissue types.

• Platform-Specific Processing: TMAs were sliced into serial sections for processing by each platform following manufacturer instructions. Between 2023 and 2024 data acquisition rounds, intentional deviations from manufacturer instructions were implemented for head-to-head comparisons on equally prepared tissue slices.

• Panel Design Configuration: To ensure comparability, the study utilized:

  • CosMx 1K panel (commercially available)
  • Xenium human breast, lung, and multi-tissue off-the-shelf panels
  • Custom-designed MERSCOPE panels matching Xenium breast and lung panels

• Data Processing and Analysis: Each dataset was processed according to standard base-calling and segmentation pipelines provided by manufacturers. Resulting count matrices and detected transcripts were subsampled and aggregated to individual TMA cores for cross-platform comparison.

This experimental design generated over 394 million transcripts and 5 million cells, providing robust statistical power for platform performance assessment [89].

Integrated Multi-Omic Approaches to Enhance Reproducibility

Transcriptome-Proteme Integration for Biological Discovery

Recognizing the limitations of single-modality analyses, researchers have developed integrated approaches that combine transcriptomic and proteomic data. A 2025 study created an integrated spatial molecular map of the mouse hippocampus combining microdissection of 3 subregions and 4 strata with fluorescence-activated synaptosome sorting, transcriptomics, and proteomics [86]. This approach revealed thousands of locally enriched molecules and highlighted proteins both tightly linked to and decoupled from mRNA availability.

The integration of translatome data identified distinct roles for protein trafficking versus local translation in establishing compartmental organization of pyramidal neurons [86]. This finding is crucial for reproducibility, as it demonstrates that localization mechanisms rather than absolute abundance often drive functional outcomes. Distal dendrites showed increased reliance on local protein synthesis, explaining previously observed discrepancies between mRNA and protein detection in neuronal compartments.

Analytical Frameworks for Multi-Omic Integration

To address the computational challenges of multi-omic integration, several feature integration methods have been developed. The clustering benchmark study evaluated 7 state-of-the-art integration methods—moETM, sciPENN, scMDC, totalVI, JTSNE, JUMAP, and MOFA+—for combining paired transcriptomic and proteomic data [87]. These methods enable researchers to extend single-omics clustering algorithms to multi-omics scenarios, potentially enhancing biological discovery while introducing new reproducibility considerations.

The emerging field of interactomics further strengthens integration by moving beyond static inventories to dynamic protein-protein interaction networks [90]. Advanced techniques including affinity purification mass spectrometry (AP-MS), proximity labeling (BioID/TurboID), and cross-linking mass spectrometry (XL-MS) reveal that cellular states are driven not by single molecules but by the rewiring of protein-protein interactions [90].

Research Reagent Solutions for Reproducible Omics Studies

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Platforms for Transcriptomics and Proteomics

Category	Product/Platform	Primary Function	Key Application
Spatial Transcriptomics	10X Xenium	Targeted transcriptomics imaging	FFPE tissue analysis with high sensitivity
	Nanostring CosMx	Whole transcriptome imaging	Spatial mapping of 1000+ genes
	Vizgen MERSCOPE	Multiplexed FISH imaging	Whole transcriptome spatial analysis
Bioinformatics Tools	Scispot LIMS	Proteomics data management	AI-assisted peak annotation and workflow management
	DEET (R package)	Differential expression enrichment	Systematic query of recomputed DEG lists
	Scanpy	Single-cell RNA-seq analysis	Large-scale dataset processing (>1M cells)
	Seurat	Single-cell RNA-seq analysis	Multi-modal data integration and spatial support
Mass Spectrometry	MaxQuant	Proteomics data analysis	Label-free and SILAC-based quantification
	Proteome Discoverer	Proteomics data analysis	MS/MS data processing and protein identification
	PEAKS	Proteomics data analysis	De novo sequencing and PTM identification

Specialized laboratory information management systems (LIMS) like Scispot provide essential infrastructure for managing the massive amounts of complex data generated in proteomics workflows [91]. These systems go beyond basic sample tracking to offer specialized tools for protein research from initial preparation through mass spectrometry analysis and beyond, addressing a critical reproducibility bottleneck in proteomics.

Visualizing Experimental Workflows for Enhanced Reproducibility

Integrated Transcriptomic and Proteomic Profiling Workflow

Spatial Transcriptomics Benchmarking Methodology

From Single-Omics to Multi-Omics Clustering

Addressing the replication crisis in transcriptomics and proteomics requires a multi-faceted approach spanning technological standardization, methodological rigor, and computational transparency. The benchmarking studies highlighted herein demonstrate that method selection significantly impacts results, with top-performing algorithms like scDCC, scAIDE, and FlowSOM consistently delivering robust performance across modalities [87]. Platform-specific characteristics of spatial transcriptomics technologies directly influence sensitivity and cell typing resolution [89], necessitating careful experimental design.

The integration of transcriptomic and proteomic data provides a powerful approach to overcome the limitations of single-modality studies, revealing biological insights that remain hidden when examining either molecular layer in isolation [86] [90]. As the field advances, increased adoption of standardized benchmarking protocols, robust computational pipelines, and shared data resources will be essential for enhancing reproducibility. Researchers must prioritize methodological transparency, tool selection based on empirical performance evidence, and multi-modal validation to ensure that discoveries in transcriptomics and proteomics stand the test of independent verification.

Evaluating differential expression (DE) is a foundational task in transcriptomics, critical for understanding biological mechanisms, disease etiology, and drug responses. The choice of analytical tools and sequencing technologies is not one-size-fits-all; it depends heavily on specific research scenarios defined by sample size, data type, and primary research goals. With the co-existence of established technologies like microarrays and multiple RNA-seq modalities, alongside a vast array of statistical methods, selecting the optimal pipeline is crucial for generating reliable, biologically relevant insights. This guide objectively compares the performance of various technologies and computational tools within the broader thesis of optimizing differential expression analysis, providing structured recommendations based on recent experimental data and benchmarks.

Technology Selection: Microarray vs. RNA-seq vs. Long-Read Sequencing

The first decision in a transcriptomics study involves choosing the profiling technology, a choice that dictates cost, dynamic range, and the types of biological questions you can address.

Performance Comparison of Core Technologies

Table 1: Comparative analysis of transcriptomic technologies for differential expression studies.

Feature	Microarray	Short-Read RNA-seq	Long-Read RNA-seq (e.g., Nanopore)
Dynamic Range	~10³ [69]	>10⁵ [69]	Broad (protocol-dependent) [3]
Ability to Detect Novel Transcripts	No [69]	Yes [69]	Yes, with full-length resolution [3]
Sensitivity & Specificity	Lower, especially for low-abundance transcripts [69] [92]	Higher [69] [92]	High for isoform resolution [3]
Isoform & Fusion Detection	Limited	Limited for complex isoforms [3]	Excellent [3]
Cost & Data Size	Lower cost, smaller data size [93]	Higher cost, larger data size [93]	Highest cost and data size (protocol-dependent) [3]
Best for Traditional DE & Pathway Analysis	Still a viable choice [93] [94]	The predominant, versatile choice [26]	Isoform-level DE, novel transcript discovery [3]

Experimental Evidence and Protocol

A 2025 study provided a direct, updated comparison between microarray and RNA-seq using the same samples from a cannabinoid exposure experiment. The methodology was as follows [93]:

• Cell Model: Human iPSC-derived hepatocytes were exposed to cannabichromene (CBC) and cannabinol (CBN) in a concentration-response manner.
• RNA Processing: Total RNA was extracted from all samples.
• Parallel Profiling: The same RNA samples were analyzed using:
  • Microarray: Affymetrix GeneChip PrimeView Human Gene Expression Arrays. Biotin-labeled cRNA was generated, hybridized, and scanned. Data were processed with the Robust Multi-Array Average (RMA) algorithm for background adjustment, quantile normalization, and summarization [93].
  • RNA-seq: Sequencing libraries were prepared with the Illumina Stranded mRNA Prep kit, enriching for polyA tails [93].
• Downstream Analysis: Both datasets were subjected to differential expression analysis, gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA), and benchmark concentration (BMC) modeling to derive transcriptomic points of departure (tPoDs) [93].

Key Finding: Despite RNA-seq identifying a larger number of differentially expressed genes (DEGs) with a wider dynamic range, the two platforms showed equivalent performance in identifying impacted functions and pathways through GSEA and produced similar tPoD values. This suggests that for traditional applications like mechanistic pathway identification and concentration-response modeling, microarray remains a viable, cost-effective option [93].

Another study on human blood samples, which applied consistent non-parametric statistical methods to both platforms, found a high correlation (median Pearson correlation of 0.76) in gene expression profiles. While RNA-seq detected more DEGs, there was significant concordance in the identified genes and pathways, reinforcing that both methods can provide reliable and complementary insights [94].

Scenario-Based Technology Recommendations

Statistical Method Selection for Differential Expression

Once data is generated, the choice of statistical method for DE analysis is critical, with performance heavily dependent on data type and sample size.

Performance Comparison of DE Methods

Table 2: Comparison of differential expression analysis methods across different scenarios.

Method	Recommended Data Type	Key Strength	Considerations	Best for Sample Size
DESeq2 [1]	RNA-seq count data	Robust for count-based data, widely adopted	Can be conservative	Small to moderate
edgeR [1]	RNA-seq count data	Powerful for complex designs, uses TMM normalization	Can be conservative	Small to moderate
voom-limma [1]	RNA-seq (log-CPM)	Adapts linear models for RNA-seq, good for small samples	Models mean-variance relationship	Small
dearseq [1]	RNA-seq	Robust statistical framework for complex designs	Performs well in benchmarks	Small (identified 191 DEGs in vaccine study)
Wilcoxon Rank-Sum	Non-normal data (e.g., microarrays) [94], Spatial Trans. [59]	Non-parametric, simple, fast	Inflated false positives in spatially correlated data [59]	Variable
GST in GEE framework [59]	Spatially correlated data	Superior Type I error control, accounts for spatial correlation	Requires fitting null model	Variable

Experimental Evidence and Protocol

A benchmark study evaluated dearseq, voom-limma, edgeR, and DESeq2 using a real-world dataset from a Yellow Fever vaccine study and synthetic data. The experimental protocol was rigorous [1]:

• Preprocessing: Raw reads underwent quality control with FastQC, adapter trimming with Trimmomatic, and transcript quantification with Salmon.
• Normalization: The Trimmed Mean of M-values (TMM) method was used to correct for compositional biases across samples.
• Batch Effect Handling: The pipeline included specific steps for detecting and correcting batch effects to remove technical variation.
• DE Analysis: The four methods were applied to the processed data. Their performance in identifying DEGs was compared, with a focus on small sample size performance [1].

Key Finding: The study concluded that a comprehensive pipeline integrating rigorous quality control, effective normalization, and batch effect handling is essential. It highlighted dearseq as a strong performer, particularly in the real dataset where it identified 191 DEGs over time, though the selection of the optimal method depends on the specific context [1].

For spatial transcriptomics (ST), a 2025 preprint systematically compared statistical methods. The standard Wilcoxon rank-sum test (default in Seurat) was found to have inflated Type I error rates due to its failure to account for spatial correlation. In contrast, a Generalized Score Test (GST) within the Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) framework demonstrated superior control of false positives while maintaining power. When applied to breast and prostate cancer ST data, GST-identified genes were enriched in genuine cancer pathways, whereas the Wilcoxon test produced substantial false positives and misleading biological associations [59].

Scenario-Based Statistical Method Recommendations

• For Bulk RNA-seq (Small Samples & Complex Designs): Begin with dearseq or voom-limma, which are designed for robustness with limited replicates [1].
• For Bulk RNA-seq (Standard Designs): DESeq2 and edgeR remain highly reliable and widely validated choices [1].
• For Spatial Transcriptomics Data: Avoid the default Wilcoxon test. Instead, use methods that account for spatial correlation like the GST/GEE framework (e.g., via the SpatialGEE R package) to control false discovery rates [59].
• For Microarray Data: Non-parametric tests like the Mann-Whitney U test (Wilcoxon rank-sum test) can be effectively applied, especially when data normality cannot be assumed [94].

Workflow Optimization and Normalization

The overall analytical workflow, particularly the normalization step, has a profound impact on the accuracy of DE results.

The Impact of Normalization

Normalization accounts for technical variations like sequencing depth and RNA composition. A benchmark of nine normalization methods using MAQC project data found that the best method can be data-dependent. For data skewed towards lowly expressed genes with high variation, methods like Med-pgQ2 and UQ-pgQ2 (per-gene normalization after global scaling) achieved slightly higher specificity and better control of the false discovery rate. Commonly used methods like DESeq and TMM (edgeR) offered high detection power but sometimes traded off specificity, leading to a slightly higher actual FDR. For datasets with low variation between replicates, most methods performed similarly [56].

A Robust and Optimized RNA-seq Pipeline

A comprehensive 2024 study established an optimized workflow by analyzing 288 distinct pipelines across five fungal RNA-seq datasets. The recommended steps are universally applicable, though tools may perform differently across species [26].

Key Finding: The study demonstrated that tuning analysis parameters for specific data, rather than using default settings, yields more accurate biological insights. For example, fastp was superior to Trim Galore for quality control and trimming, as it better improved base quality and avoided unbalanced base distribution in sequence tails [26].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Key reagents and materials for transcriptomic profiling experiments.

Item	Function	Example Use Case
iPSC-derived Hepatocytes (e.g., iCell Hepatocytes 2.0)	A biologically relevant in vitro model for toxicology and pharmacology studies.	Used in the cannabinoid exposure study to model human liver response [93].
PAXgene Blood RNA Tubes	Stabilizes intracellular RNA in whole blood samples at collection, preserving the transcriptome.	Used in human clinical studies for collecting blood from youth with and without HIV [94].
Globin mRNA Depletion Kit (e.g., GLOBINclear)	Removes abundant globin mRNAs from blood samples, dramatically improving detection of other transcripts.	Critical step in preparing whole blood RNA for both microarray and RNA-seq analysis [94].
Spike-in RNA Controls (e.g., ERCC, Sequin, SIRVs)	Artificial RNA sequences added at known concentrations to evaluate technical performance, sensitivity, and quantification accuracy.	Used in the SG-NEx long-read benchmarking project to evaluate platform performance [3].
Stranded mRNA Library Prep Kit (e.g., Illumina Stranded mRNA Prep)	Prepares sequencing libraries by enriching for polyadenylated RNA and preserving strand orientation.	Used to generate standard short-read RNA-seq libraries in technology comparison studies [93].
Direct RNA Sequencing Kit (Oxford Nanopore)	Sequences native RNA molecules without conversion to cDNA or amplification, enabling direct detection of RNA modifications.	One of the protocols benchmarked in the SG-NEx project for full-length transcriptome analysis [3].

Conclusion

The evaluation of differential expression tools reveals that optimal performance is not achieved by a single universal method but through context-aware workflow construction. Key takeaways include the critical need to account for data-type-specific challenges—such as individual-level variability in scRNA-seq or missing values in proteomics—and the demonstrated power of ensemble approaches to improve differential coverage. Future directions point towards increased automation, robust multi-omics integration, and the adoption of explainable AI to interpret complex genomic data. For biomedical and clinical research, this underscores the necessity of rigorous, transparent benchmarking and workflow optimization to ensure that DE findings are both statistically sound and biologically meaningful, thereby accelerating the translation of genomic insights into diagnostic and therapeutic applications.

References

• 1. A robust pipeline for RNA-seq data and a benchmark ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950433325002034]
• 2. Exploring cell-to-cell variability and functional insights ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41540-025-00507-z]
• 3. A systematic benchmark of Nanopore long-read RNA ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41592-025-02623-4]
• 4. Parametric and non-parametric Poisson regression for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10663416/]
• 5. Negative Binomial Regression | R Data Analysis Examples [https://stats.oarc.ucla.edu/r/dae/negative-binomial-regression/]
• 6. Flexible and efficient count-distribution and mixed-model ... [https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.07.17.25331702v1]
• 7. Poisson v Negative Binomial Reg [https://real-statistics.com/negative-binomial-regression/comparing-poisson-and-negative-binomial-regression-models/]
• 8. LFCseq: a nonparametric approach for differential expression ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4304217/]
• 9. Replicability of bulk RNA-Seq differential expression and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12077797/]
• 10. Compare Poisson and negative binomial regression with ... [https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/127505/compare-poisson-and-negative-binomial-regression-with-lr-test]
• 11. scMUG: deep clustering analysis of single-cell RNA-seq ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40188497/]
• 12. An AI-Ready Standardized Resource for Single-Cell RNA ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2509.25884v1]
• 13. A benchmark study of simulation methods for single-cell ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8617278/]
• 14. scGraphformer: unveiling cellular heterogeneity and ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-024-07154-w]
• 15. Benchmarking integration of single-cell differential ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-37126-3]
• 16. Large-scale Benchmarking of Single-cell Differential ... [https://github.com/himelmallick/BenchmarkSingleCell]
• 17. Soft graph clustering for single-cell RNA sequencing data [https://bmcbioinformatics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12859-025-06231-z]
• 18. Current challenges in software solutions for mass ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3418498/]
• 19. pepDESC: A Method for the Detection of Differentially ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10316082/]
• 20. Optimizing differential expression analysis for proteomics ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-47899-w]
• 21. Choosing the Right Proteomics Data Analysis Software [https://www.metwarebio.com/proteomics-software-comparison-lc-msms-lfq-tmt-silac-dia/]
• 22. Benchmarking informatics workflows for data-independent ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-65174-4]
• 23. Research A Comparative Analysis of Data Analysis Tools ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1535947623001342]
• 24. How to Analyze RNAseq Data for Absolute Beginners Part 20 [https://ngs101.com/how-to-analyze-rnaseq-data-for-absolute-beginners-part-20-comparing-limma-deseq2-and-edger-in-differential-expression-analysis/]
• 25. Three Differential Expression Analysis Methods for RNA ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34605806/]
• 26. A comprehensive workflow for optimizing RNA-seq data analysis [https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12864-024-10414-y]
• 27. DESeq2 or edgeR - Mike Love's blog - WordPress.com [https://mikelove.wordpress.com/2016/09/28/deseq2-or-edger/]
• 28. How do I explain the difference between edgeR, LIMMA ... [https://www.biostars.org/p/284775/]
• 29. How can we compare EdgeR to limma-voom? [https://www.biostars.org/p/9490281/]
• 30. Exaggerated false positives by popular differential expression ... [https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-022-02648-4]
• 31. gene-level exploratory analysis and differential expression [https://csama2025.bioconductor.eu/lab/4_bulk-rnaseq/rnaseqGene_CSAMA2025.html]
• 32. Differential gene expression analysis | Functional genomics II [https://www.ebi.ac.uk/training/online/courses/functional-genomics-ii-common-technologies-and-data-analysis-methods/rna-sequencing/performing-a-rna-seq-experiment/data-analysis/differential-gene-expression-analysis/]
• 33. Single-Cell Transcriptomics: Current Methods and ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnins.2021.591122/full]
• 34. Comparative analysis of differential gene expression analysis ... [https://bmcbioinformatics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12859-019-2599-6]
• 35. scDETECT: a novel statistical model accounting for cell ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12554637/]
• 36. An evaluation of statistical differential analysis methods in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10055642/]
• 37. 12 Differential Expression (DE) analysis [https://biocellgen-public.svi.edu.au/mig_2019_scrnaseq-workshop/dechapter.html]
• 38. 16. Differential gene expression analysis [https://www.sc-best-practices.org/conditions/differential_gene_expression.html]
• 39. A balanced measure shows superior performance of ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-35519-4]
• 40. Confronting false discoveries in single-cell differential ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-25960-2]
• 41. Single-cell RNA-seq: Pseudobulk differential expression ... [https://hbctraining.github.io/scRNA-seq/lessons/pseudobulk_DESeq2_scrnaseq.html]
• 42. Pseudobulk Analysis with Decoupler and EdgeR [https://training.galaxyproject.org/training-material/topics/single-cell/tutorials/pseudobulk-analysis/tutorial.html]
• 43. Benchmarking methods for detecting differential states ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9487674/]
• 44. Differential detection workflows for multi-sample single-cell ... [https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12864-025-12102-x]
• 45. scMetaIntegrator: a meta-analysis approach to paired ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12157664/]
• 46. Reproducibility Crossroads: Impact of Statistical Choices on ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12471179/]
• 47. Benchmarking informatics workflows for data-independent ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12639053/]
• 48. Normics: Proteomic Normalization by Variance and Data- ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1535947622000779]
• 49. Evaluation of imputation and imputation-free strategies for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12009712/]
• 50. A shrinkage-based statistical method for testing group mean ... [https://bmcbioinformatics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12859-025-06275-1]
• 51. Comparative evaluation of imputation and batch-effect ... [https://sciety-discovery.elifesciences.org/articles/by?article_doi=10.1101/2025.08.14.25333694]
• 52. Comparison of normalization methods for differential gene ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3918003/]
• 53. A benchmark of RNA-seq data normalization methods for ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41540-024-00448-z]
• 54. RNA-Seq Normalization: Methods and Stages [https://bigomics.ch/blog/why-how-normalize-rna-seq-data/]
• 55. Comparison of normalization and differential expression ... [https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12864-015-2353-z]
• 56. A comparison of normalization methods for differential ... [https://www.rna-seqblog.com/a-comparison-of-normalization-methods-for-differential-expression-analysis-of-rna-seq-data/]
• 57. Benchmarking tools for detecting longitudinal differential ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-35564-z]
• 58. An in‐depth benchmark framework for evaluating single ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11928879/]
• 59. A comparative study of statistical methods for identifying ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11870610/]
• 60. Replicability of bulk RNA-Seq differential expression and ... [https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1011630]
• 61. Exploring and mitigating shortcomings in single-cell ... [https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-025-03525-6]
• 62. A Differential Evolution-Based Optimized Ensemble... [https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1003]
• 63. Prediction of drug synergy score using ensemble based ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8687263/]
• 64. Benchmarking differential expression analysis tools for RNA ... [https://bmcbioinformatics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12859-018-2261-8]
• 65. DiSC: a statistical tool for fast differential expression analysis ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12203077/]
• 66. DEAPR: Differential Expression and Pathway Ranking Tool ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11816133/]
• 67. PROPER: comprehensive power evaluation for differential ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4287952/]
• 68. A comprehensive comparison of RNA-Seq-based ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3488244/]
• 69. RNA-Seq vs Microarrays | Compare technologies [https://www.illumina.com/science/technology/next-generation-sequencing/beginners/advantages/rna-seq-vs-arrays.html]
• 70. Identification and validation of differentially expressed ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/medicine/articles/10.3389/fmed.2025.1545095/full]
• 71. Efficient and easy gene expression and genetic variation ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-93067-5]
• 72. A comparison of methods for differential expression analysis ... [https://bmcbioinformatics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2105-14-91]
• 73. Differential gene expression analysis pipelines and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10951429/]
• 74. Systematic comparison and assessment of RNA-seq ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-76881-x]
• 75. Evaluation of tools for differential gene expression analysis ... [https://arxiv.org/abs/1505.02017]
• 76. Evaluation of tools for differential gene expression analysis ... [http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015arXiv150502017S/abstract]
• 77. Comparative studies of differential gene calling using RNA ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3891352/]
• 78. Evaluation of methods for differential expression analysis ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4634584/]
• 79. Comparative analysis of differential gene expression tools ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6357553/]
• 80. SigEMD: A powerful method for differential gene ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12233817/]
• 81. A practical guide to methods controlling false discoveries in ... [https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-019-1716-1]
• 82. Covariate Selection for RNA-Seq Differential Expression ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/13/18/3047]
• 83. Hugely different results between edgeR and DESeq2 [https://www.biostars.org/p/9552174/]
• 84. [Tutorial] Bulk RNA-seq DE analysis [https://informatics.fas.harvard.edu/resources/tutorials/differential-expression-analysis/]
• 85. Special Issue “Proteomics: An Invaluable Tool to Gain ... [https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/26/22/11197]
• 86. An integrated transcriptomic and proteomic map of the ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-63119-5]
• 87. Comparative benchmarking of single-cell clustering ... [https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-025-03719-y]
• 88. Differential Expression Enrichment Tool (DEET) [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9869326/]
• 89. Systematic benchmarking of imaging spatial ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-64990-y]
• 90. The Interactome Era: Integrating RNA-Seq, Proteomics ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1568163725002624]
• 91. Best Proteomics LIMS in 2026: The Ultimate Guide | Trends [https://www.scispot.com/blog/best-proteomics-lims-in-2025-the-ultimate-guide]
• 92. Comparison of RNA-Seq and Microarray in Transcriptome ... [https://www.rna-seqblog.com/comparison-of-rna-seq-and-microarray-in-transcriptome-profiling/]
• 93. An updated comparison of microarray and RNA-seq for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12016467/]
• 94. The Role of Microarray in Modern Sequencing [https://www.mdpi.com/2673-6284/14/3/55]