RNA-Seq Normalization for PCA: A Practical Guide for Robust Transcriptomic Analysis

Abstract

This article provides a comprehensive guide for researchers and scientists on how to effectively normalize RNA-seq data for Principal Component Analysis (PCA). It covers the foundational reasons why raw count data is unsuitable for PCA, explores and compares the most appropriate normalization methods like TPM, TMM, and median-of-ratios for this specific application, and addresses common troubleshooting scenarios such as handling batch effects and outliers. The guide also outlines best practices for validating normalization success and interpreting PCA results to ensure biologically meaningful conclusions in biomedical and clinical research.

Why Normalize? The Critical Link Between RNA-seq Counts and PCA Validity

Understanding the Nature of Raw RNA-seq Count Data

RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) is a high-throughput technology that enables genome-wide quantification of RNA abundance, making it a cornerstone of modern transcriptomics research [1]. The initial output of an RNA-seq experiment is raw sequence reads, which undergo a complex computational transformation before biological interpretation can begin. The foundational product of this preprocessing is the raw count matrix, a data structure where rows represent genes and columns represent samples, with each value indicating the number of sequencing reads mapped to a particular gene in a specific sample [1] [2]. Understanding the precise characteristics of this count data is paramount for researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals, as it forms the basis for all subsequent analyses, including the crucial step of normalization for Principal Component Analysis (PCA). Proper normalization directly addresses the inherent properties of raw counts and is essential for generating biologically valid insights from multivariate exploratory analyses like PCA [3].

Key Characteristics of Raw Count Data

Raw RNA-seq counts possess specific statistical properties that fundamentally shape the analytical approach.

• High-Dimensionality: A typical RNA-seq dataset contains expression values for tens of thousands of genes across a much smaller set of samples, creating a high-dimensional data matrix [4].
• Compositional Nature: The total number of reads (sequencing depth) can vary significantly between samples. Consequently, the count for a single gene is not an absolute measure but is dependent on the counts of all other genes in the sample [1].
• Mean-Variance Relationship: Count data exhibit a strong dependence between the mean expression level of a gene and the variance of its measurements across samples. Highly expressed genes typically show greater absolute variance than lowly expressed genes [1].
• Dependence on Gene Length: Longer transcripts have a higher probability of being sequenced, resulting in more reads independent of the true biological expression level. This characteristic must be considered when comparing expression between different genes [1].

Table 1: Fundamental Properties of Raw RNA-seq Count Data

Property	Description	Impact on Downstream Analysis
Sequencing Depth	The total number of reads obtained per sample varies.	Samples with higher depth will have higher counts, creating a technical bias that must be corrected.
Library Composition	A few highly expressed genes can consume a large fraction of the total reads in a sample.	Can create spurious differences between samples if not accounted for during normalization [1].
Discrete Distribution	Counts are integer-valued and non-negative.	Standard linear models assuming a normal distribution are not directly applicable; specialized statistical models like the negative binomial distribution are used instead [1].

Normalization Methods for PCA

Normalization is an essential pre-processing step designed to remove technical artifacts, making expression counts comparable across samples. The choice of normalization method profoundly impacts the results and biological interpretation of PCA [3].

Common Normalization Techniques

• Counts Per Million (CPM): This simple method divides the raw count for each gene by the total number of reads in the library (sequencing depth), then multiplies by one million. Limitation: It does not correct for differences in library composition and is therefore not suitable for differential expression analysis or PCA when composition bias is suspected [1].
• Trimmed Mean of M-values (TMM): Implemented in the edgeR package, this method assumes that most genes are not differentially expressed. It trims the extreme log fold-changes and largest counts to calculate a scaling factor that corrects for both sequencing depth and RNA composition [1].
• Median-of-Ratios: Used by DESeq2, this method calculates a scaling factor for each sample by comparing each gene's count to its geometric mean across all samples. It is robust to large numbers of differentially expressed genes [1].
• Transcripts Per Million (TPM): Similar to CPM, but with a crucial added step of correcting for gene length. It scales the counts to the total number of transcripts per million, making it more appropriate for within-sample comparisons and visualizations, though it may still be affected by composition bias between samples [1].

Table 2: Comparison of RNA-seq Normalization Methods

Method	Sequencing Depth Correction	Gene Length Correction	Library Composition Correction	Suitable for PCA?
CPM	Yes	No	No	Not Recommended
RPKM/FPKM	Yes	Yes	No	Not Recommended
TPM	Yes	Yes	Partial	With Caution
Median-of-Ratios (DESeq2)	Yes	No	Yes	Yes [1]
TMM (edgeR)	Yes	No	Yes	Yes [1]

The Critical Impact of Normalization on PCA

A comprehensive evaluation of 12 normalization methods demonstrated that while PCA score plots might appear similar across different techniques, the biological interpretation of the models can depend heavily on the normalization method applied [3]. Normalization alters the correlation patterns within the data, which in turn affects the principal components, the quality of sample clustering in the low-dimensional space, and the ranking of genes that drive the separation between sample groups. Therefore, selecting an appropriate normalization method is not a mere preprocessing step but a critical analytical decision that directly influences the conclusions drawn from an RNA-seq experiment.

Experimental Protocol: From Raw Data to PCA

This protocol details the steps to generate a raw count matrix and prepare normalized data for PCA, a common exploratory analysis in RNA-seq studies.

Preprocessing and Quantification

The initial phase involves transforming raw sequencing files (FASTQ) into a count matrix.

• Quality Control (QC): Assess raw sequence data using tools like FastQC or MultiQC to identify potential technical errors, such as leftover adapter sequences, unusual base composition, or duplicated reads [1] [5]. Review the QC report to determine if data trimming is necessary.
• Read Trimming: Clean the data by removing low-quality base calls and adapter sequences using tools like Trimmomatic or Cutadapt [1]. Note: Some modern aligners are robust to minor adapter contamination, making this step optional in certain workflows [5].
• Read Alignment / Pseudoalignment: Map the cleaned reads to a reference genome or transcriptome.
  • Alignment: Use splice-aware aligners like STAR or HISAT2 to map reads to a reference genome, generating BAM files [1] [5]. This allows for comprehensive QC.
  • Pseudoalignment: As a faster alternative, tools like Salmon or Kallisto can estimate transcript abundances without generating base-by-base alignments, which is advantageous for large datasets [1] [6].
• Post-Alignment QC and Quantification:
  • For alignment-based methods, perform post-alignment QC with tools like SAMtools or Qualimap to remove poorly aligned or multi-mapping reads [1].
  • Generate the raw count matrix using quantification tools like featureCounts or HTSeq-count, which count the number of reads mapped to each gene [1]. The output is a table of raw, integer read counts for each gene in each sample.

Normalization and PCA Workflow

The following workflow outlines the steps for normalizing the raw count matrix and performing PCA.

Step-by-Step Instructions

• Low-Count Filtering: Begin by filtering out genes with very low counts across all samples, as these contribute mostly noise and can distort the PCA. A common threshold is to require a minimum count in a certain number of samples [7].
• Normalization: Apply a compositional normalization method to the filtered count matrix. As detailed in Table 2, methods like the Median-of-Ratios (from DESeq2) or TMM (from edgeR) are recommended. These are specifically designed to correct for library size and composition [1].
• Transformation: For PCA, which is based on linear distances, normalized counts should be variance-stabilized. This is often achieved by applying a log2 transformation to the normalized counts (e.g., producing log2-CPM or log2-TMM values) [8]. This step helps to ensure that the variance is not driven solely by the most highly expressed genes.
• PCA Execution and Visualization: Perform PCA on the transformed and normalized data matrix. The analysis is typically run on the transposed matrix (genes as columns, samples as rows) to reduce the dimensionality and visualize sample-to-sample relationships [4] [9]. The results are visualized in a 2D or 3D scatter plot (a bi-plot) using the first few principal components (e.g., PC1 vs. PC2).
• Interpretation: In the resulting PCA plot, samples with similar global gene expression profiles will cluster together. The percentage of the total variance explained by each principal component should be examined, as this indicates how well the low-dimensional plot represents the original high-dimensional data [4] [9]. This plot is critical for assessing batch effects, identifying outliers, and verifying experimental group separation.

The Scientist's Toolkit

Table 3: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for RNA-seq Analysis

Tool / Resource	Type	Primary Function
FastQC / MultiQC [1] [5]	Software	Quality control assessment of raw sequencing reads and aggregation of reports across multiple samples.
STAR [1] [6]	Aligner	Splice-aware alignment of reads to a reference genome.
Salmon [1] [6]	Quantification Tool	Fast, accurate quantification of transcript abundances using pseudoalignment.
DESeq2 [1]	R Package	Differential expression analysis and normalization using the median-of-ratios method.
edgeR [1]	R Package	Differential expression analysis and normalization using the TMM method.
HTSeq / featureCounts [1]	Software	Generation of the raw count matrix from aligned reads (BAM files).
Ensembl / GENCODE [10]	Database	Source for reference genome sequences (FASTA) and gene annotations (GTF/GFF).

Modern transcriptomic technologies, including single-cell RNA-sequencing (scRNA-seq) and spatial transcriptomics, generate data of unprecedented dimensionality and complexity. A typical scRNA-seq matrix consists of approximately 20,000 genes across thousands to millions of cells, creating significant analytical challenges [11]. This high-dimensional space is inherently sparse, with a large proportion of zero counts resulting from both biological and technical factors, including the notorious "dropout" phenomenon where even highly expressed genes may show zero counts in some cells [11] [12].

The "curse of dimensionality" refers to various phenomena that occur when analyzing data in high-dimensional spaces that do not occur in low-dimensional settings. In transcriptomics, this manifests as increased noise, computational complexity, and difficulty in distinguishing true biological signals from technical artifacts. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) serves as a critical first step in mitigating these challenges by projecting the data into a lower-dimensional subspace that captures the essential biological variation while reducing noise and computational burden [13] [14].

The Compositional Nature of Transcriptomic Data

A fundamental characteristic of high-throughput sequencing data is their compositional nature. Transcriptomic data are constrained by an upper limit on the total number of reads that a sequencer can process, creating a competitive situation where an increase in one transcript's count necessarily leads to decreases in others [11]. This compositionality means that the data carry only relative information, making standard Euclidean statistics inappropriate and potentially misleading.

Compositional Data Analysis (CoDA) provides a robust mathematical framework for handling such data by representing them as log-ratios (LRs) between components rather than as absolute values [11]. The CoDA framework offers three key properties that make it particularly suitable for transcriptomic analysis:

• Scale invariance: Multiplying the original data by a scale factor has no effect, as compositional data only carry relative information
• Sub-compositional coherence: Results obtained from a subset of the data remain consistent with the full composition
• Permutation invariance: Results do not depend on the order in which parts appear in a composition [11]

The centered-log-ratio (CLR) transformation has shown particular promise for transcriptomic applications, providing more distinct and well-separated clusters in dimensionality reductions and improving trajectory inference analyses [11].

Normalization Methods for PCA in Transcriptomics

Normalization is a critical prerequisite for PCA, as it ensures that technical variability does not dominate biological signals in the reduced dimension space. Different normalization methods make different statistical assumptions and can dramatically impact downstream PCA results and interpretation [3] [12].

Categories of Normalization Methods

Table 1: Categories of Normalization Methods for Transcriptomic Data

Category	Mathematical Basis	Key Examples	Best Suited For
Global Scaling Methods	Scale counts by a size factor	CPM, FPKM, RPKM, TPM	Bulk RNA-seq, initial processing
Generalized Linear Models	Model counts with specific distributions	DESeq2, edgeR	Differential expression analysis
Mixed Methods	Combine multiple approaches	SCTransform (regularized negative binomial)	Single-cell data with high sparsity
Machine Learning-based	Learn normalization from data patterns	MAGIC, ALRA	Complex batch effects, imputation
Compositional Methods	Log-ratio transformations	CLR, ALR, ILR (CoDA framework)	All sequencing data, especially sparse matrices

Impact of Normalization on PCA Results

The choice of normalization method significantly affects both the visualization and biological interpretation of PCA results. Studies have demonstrated that while PCA score plots may appear similar across different normalization methods, the biological interpretation of the models can vary substantially [3]. For example, in analyses where pathway enrichment is performed based on genes contributing most to principal components, the selected normalization method heavily influences which biological pathways are identified as significant [3].

Performance metrics for evaluating normalization methods include silhouette width (measuring cluster separation), K-nearest neighbor batch-effect test, and detection of highly variable genes [12]. No single normalization method performs optimally across all scenarios, making it essential to select methods based on specific data characteristics and research questions.

Experimental Protocols for Normalization and PCA

Protocol 1: Standard Log-Normalization with PCA

This protocol outlines the standard log-normalization approach commonly implemented in tools such as Seurat [11].

Materials:

• Raw count matrix (genes × cells)
• Computational environment (R/Python with necessary packages)
• Research Reagent Solutions:
  • Seurat (R package) or Scanpy (Python package) for normalization and PCA
  • Clustering algorithms (e.g., hierarchical clustering, k-means) for validation
  • Visualization tools (ggplot2, matplotlib)

Procedure:

• Quality Control: Filter cells based on quality metrics (mitochondrial percentage, unique feature counts)
• Normalization: Apply NormalizeData() function with default parameters to normalize counts per cell
• Feature Selection: Identify the most variable genes using FindVariableFeatures()
• Scaling: Scale the data to equalize variance across genes using ScaleData()
• PCA: Perform linear dimensionality reduction using RunPCA()
• Visualization: Visualize PCA results using DimPlot() and DimHeatmap()
• Determination of Significant PCs: Use elbow plots and JackStraw analysis to select biologically relevant principal components

Protocol 2: CoDA-Based CLR Transformation for Sparse Data

This protocol implements Compositional Data Analysis principles specifically designed to handle the sparsity and compositionality of scRNA-seq data [11].

Materials:

• Raw count matrix with zero counts
• CoDAhd R package (available at https://github.com/GO3295/CoDAhd)
• Research Reagent Solutions:
  • CoDAhd package for high-dimensional CoDA transformations
  • Count addition methods (e.g., SGM) for handling zeros
  • Clustering validation metrics (silhouette width, DBI, VRC)

Procedure:

• Handling Zero Counts: Apply count addition schemes (e.g., SGM) to enable log-ratio transformations
• CLR Transformation: Transform the data using the centered-log-ratio transformation
• Validation of Transformation: Assess distributional properties post-transformation
• PCA Implementation: Perform PCA on the CLR-transformed data
• Downstream Analysis: Compare clustering resolution and trajectory inference results with conventional methods
• Performance Assessment: Evaluate using cluster separation metrics and biological plausibility of trajectories

Benchmarking Dimensionality Reduction Performance

Evaluation of DR Methods Across Experimental Conditions

Systematic benchmarking of dimensionality reduction methods provides critical insights for method selection in transcriptomic applications. A comprehensive evaluation of 30 DR methods across four experimental conditions using the Connectivity Map (CMap) dataset revealed significant performance differences [13] [15].

Table 2: Performance of Top Dimensionality Reduction Methods in Transcriptomic Applications

Method	Algorithm Type	Cluster Separation (DBI)	Local Structure	Global Structure	Dose-Response Sensitivity	Computational Efficiency
PCA	Linear	Low	Moderate	High	Low	High
t-SNE	Nonlinear	High	High	Moderate	High	Moderate
UMAP	Nonlinear	High	High	High	Moderate	Moderate
PaCMAP	Nonlinear	High	High	High	Low	Moderate
PHATE	Nonlinear	Moderate	High	Moderate	High	Low
GraphPCA	Linear (spatial)	High*	High*	High*	N/A	High

Note: Performance metrics are relative comparisons based on benchmark studies; *Spatial transcriptomics applications

The benchmarking results demonstrated that t-SNE, UMAP, PaCMAP, and TRIMAP outperformed other methods in preserving both local and global biological structures, particularly in separating distinct drug responses and grouping compounds with similar molecular targets [13]. However, most methods struggled with detecting subtle dose-dependent transcriptomic changes, where Spectral, PHATE, and t-SNE showed stronger performance [13].

Specialized PCA Variants for Specific Applications

Recent methodological advances have led to the development of specialized PCA variants tailored to specific transcriptomic challenges:

GraphPCA: Designed for spatial transcriptomics, GraphPCA incorporates spatial neighborhood graphs as constraints during dimension reduction, significantly enhancing spatial domain detection accuracy compared to standard PCA [14]. The method demonstrates particular robustness to low sequencing depths and high noise levels, maintaining performance even with only 10% of original sequencing depth or 60% dropout rates [14].

Generalized Contrastive PCA (gcPCA): This hyperparameter-free method enables comparison of covariance structures between two experimental conditions, addressing questions about which gene sets exhibit coordinated expression changes across conditions [16]. Unlike traditional PCA, gcPCA can identify patterns enriched in one condition relative to another, making it valuable for comparative transcriptomic studies.

Implementation Guidelines and Best Practices

Normalization Selection Framework

Choosing the appropriate normalization strategy requires consideration of multiple factors:

• Data Type: Bulk RNA-seq versus single-cell versus spatial transcriptomics
• Sparsity Level: Proportion of zeros in the count matrix
• Experimental Design: Presence of batch effects, multiple conditions
• Biological Question: Differential expression, trajectory inference, cell type identification

For scRNA-seq data with high sparsity, CoDA-based CLR transformation with appropriate count addition schemes generally outperforms conventional log-normalization in clustering and trajectory inference [11]. For spatial transcriptomics, methods incorporating spatial information like GraphPCA provide superior results for spatial domain detection [14].

Quality Control Metrics Post-Normalization

After normalization and PCA, several quality metrics should be assessed:

• Batch Effect Removal: Evaluate using K-nearest neighbor batch-effect test
• Cluster Separation: Measure using silhouette width and variance ratio criterion
• Biological Coherence: Assess through pathway enrichment of leading PCs
• Variance Stabilization: Examine mean-variance relationships

PCA remains an essential tool for tackling the curse of dimensionality in transcriptomic data analysis. The critical importance of proper normalization prior to PCA cannot be overstated, as the choice of normalization method fundamentally shapes downstream biological interpretations. The emerging recognition of RNA-seq data's compositional nature suggests that CoDA-based approaches like CLR transformation may provide more statistically rigorous foundations for normalization, particularly for sparse single-cell data.

Future directions in this field include the development of more integrated normalization and dimension reduction workflows, increased attention to computational efficiency for massive-scale datasets, and enhanced methods for interpreting the biological meaning of principal components. As transcriptomic technologies continue to evolve in resolution and scale, appropriate application of normalization and PCA will remain essential for extracting meaningful biological insights from high-dimensional data.

Principal Component Analysis (PCA) is a fundamental dimensionality-reduction technique widely used to explore RNA-sequencing data, but it can dramatically amplify technical biases if not properly addressed. Sequencing depth (the total number of reads per sample) and library composition (the transcriptomic makeup of each sample) represent two critical sources of variation that can severely distort principal components, potentially obscuring biological signals and leading to erroneous interpretations. This Application Note examines how these biases manifest in PCA, provides protocols for their detection, and details normalization strategies essential for preparing RNA-seq data for robust PCA within the broader context of normalization research.

Table 1: Impact and Detection of Key Technical Biases in PCA

Table summarizing the characteristics of two major technical biases that can confound Principal Component Analysis of RNA-seq data.

Bias Type	Impact on PCA	Key Diagnostic Methods	Common Normalization Strategies
Sequencing Depth	Dominates PC1, creating clusters based on total read count rather than biology [17].	Spearman correlation between library size and principal components; Relative Log Expression (RLE) plots [17].	Global scaling (TMM, RLE), Conditional Quantile Normalization, and RUV-III with PRPS [12] [17].
Library Composition	Introduces spurious sample groupings due to differing RNA populations (e.g., varying tumor purity, pathogen infection) [12].	Analysis of known biological covariates (e.g., tumor purity estimates); PCA colored by potential confounding factors.	Between-sample normalization methods (e.g., using negative control genes or spike-ins) and linear model adjustments [12] [17].

Understanding the Biases and Their Amplification in PCA

Sequencing Depth as a Source of Unwanted Variation

Sequencing depth, or library size, refers to the total number of reads sequenced for a given sample. In raw count data, samples with larger library sizes will inherently have higher counts for most genes. PCA is particularly sensitive to this magnitude-based variation, often causing sequencing depth to dominate the first principal component (PC1), which captures the greatest variance in the dataset [17]. This can lead to samples clustering based on technical read depth rather than genuine biological similarity, a critical confounder in downstream analysis.

Library Composition Effects

Library composition bias arises when the underlying transcriptomic profile of samples differs systematically due to technical or biological reasons not related to the experimental question. A prime example in cancer transcriptomics is tumor purity—the proportion of cancer cells in a tissue sample [17]. Variations in tumor purity significantly alter the proportional expression of genes. Other sources include the use of different RNA enrichment protocols (e.g., poly-A selection vs. ribosomal RNA depletion) [18]. When these composition differences are confounded with experimental groups, PCA will amplify them, creating separation that can be misinterpreted as a primary biological effect.

Experimental Protocols for Bias Detection

Protocol 2.1: Diagnosing Sequencing Depth Bias

Purpose: To determine whether library size is a major driver of variation in your PCA. Materials: Raw count matrix, R statistical environment, PCA results. Procedure:

• Calculate Library Sizes: Compute the total count for each sample (column) in the raw count matrix.
• Perform PCA: Conduct PCA on the log-transformed or variance-stabilized count matrix.
• Correlate with PCs: Calculate the Spearman correlation between each sample's library size and its coordinates along PC1 and PC2.
• Visualize with RLE Plots: Generate Relative Log Expression (RLE) plots. In a well-normalized dataset, the median RLE for each sample should be centered around zero. Systematic deviations from zero indicate the presence of unwanted variation, including that from library size [17]. Interpretation: A high correlation (e.g., |r| > 0.7) between library size and an early PC is strong evidence that sequencing depth is a major technical bias in your dataset.

Protocol 2.2: Investigating Library Composition Bias

Purpose: To assess whether systematic differences in transcriptome composition are driving PCA results. Materials: Sample metadata containing known covariates (e.g., tumor purity estimates, protocol batch, sample source). Procedure:

• Annotate PCA Plot: Color the data points in the PCA plot by the potential confounding factor (e.g., tumor purity as a gradient, or library prep protocol as different shapes).
• Check for Confounding: Visually inspect whether the separation on the PCA plot aligns more strongly with these technical or biological covariates than with the primary experimental conditions.
• Statistical Testing: For a quantitative assessment, use methods like PERMANOVA to test the association between the sample distances in PCA space and the covariate of interest. Interpretation: If samples cluster predominantly by a covariate like batch or tumor purity, this indicates a strong composition effect that must be corrected before biological inference.

Normalization Strategies for Bias Correction

Within-Sample and Between-Sample Normalization

Normalization methods can be broadly classified based on the type of bias they address.

• Within-sample normalization adjusts for gene-specific factors like length and GC content, making expression levels comparable across different genes within the same sample. Methods like FPKM and TPM fall into this category [12].
• Between-sample normalization aims to remove systematic technical differences between samples, such as sequencing depth and composition effects, to make gene counts comparable across samples. This is the primary defense against the biases amplified by PCA.

Recommended Normalization Methods

Different normalization methods make different statistical assumptions and are suited to specific data structures. The table below outlines common and advanced methods.

Table 2: Comparison of RNA-Seq Normalization Methods for PCA

Table outlining common normalization methodologies, their underlying principles, and best-use contexts.

Method	Underlying Principle	Best For	Considerations
TMM (Trimmed Mean of M-values)	Assumes most genes are not differentially expressed (DE). Uses a weighted trimmed mean of log expression ratios to calculate scaling factors [12].	Standard DGE analyses with balanced, symmetric study designs.	Performance can degrade when the majority of genes are DE between conditions.
RLE (Relative Log Expression)	Computes a scaling factor for each sample based on the median ratio of its counts to a pseudo-reference sample [12].	Standard DGE analyses; default in DESeq2.	Similar to TMM, relies on the assumption that most genes are not DE.
RUV-III with PRPS	Uses pseudo-replicates of pseudo-samples (PRPS) and negative control genes to estimate and remove unwanted variation (e.g., library size, batch, tumor purity) [17].	Large, complex studies (e.g., TCGA) with confounded sources of variation.	Powerful for integrated datasets from multiple labs/platforms. Requires careful setup of pseudo-replicates.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

The following reagents and computational tools are critical for implementing the protocols described in this note.

Table 3: Key Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Table listing essential reagents, software, and their specific functions in bias detection and correction for RNA-seq analysis.

Item	Function/Application
External RNA Control Consortium (ERCC) Spike-Ins	Synthetic RNA molecules added to samples to create a standard baseline for counting and normalization, helping to control for technical variation [12].
Unique Molecular Identifiers (UMIs)	Short random nucleotide sequences that tag individual mRNA molecules pre-amplification, allowing for accurate counting and correction of PCR amplification biases [12].
R/Bioconductor	An open-source software environment for statistical computing and graphics, essential for implementing normalization and analysis workflows [18].
sva package (ComBat-Seq)	A Bioconductor package containing the ComBat-Seq function, which uses an empirical Bayes framework to adjust for batch effects in RNA-seq count data [19] [18].
limma package	A Bioconductor package for the analysis of gene expression data, including the removeBatchEffect function for linear model-based adjustment of known batch effects [19].
FastQC	A popular tool for quality control of raw sequencing reads, helping to identify adapter contamination, unusual base composition, and duplicated reads [20].

Workflow for Mitigating Technical Bias in RNA-seq PCA

Sequencing depth and library composition are not mere nuisances but fundamental technical biases that PCA will systematically amplify if left unaddressed. Robust RNA-seq analysis for PCA requires a disciplined, diagnostic approach that involves visualizing and quantifying these biases before applying appropriate normalization strategies. By integrating the protocols and methodologies outlined in this Application Note—ranging from standard global scaling factors to advanced methods like RUV-III with PRPS—researchers can confidently mitigate these technical confounders. This ensures that the biological variation of interest remains the primary driver of analytical results, thereby enhancing the reliability and interpretability of transcriptomic studies.

Separating Biological Signal from Technical Noise in Your PCA Plot

Principal Component Analysis (PCA) is an indispensable dimension reduction technique in the analysis of high-throughput RNA-sequencing data. It transforms the high-dimensional gene expression measurements into a lower-dimensional space defined by principal components (PCs), which are linear combinations of the original genes designed to capture the maximum variance in the data [21]. In bioinformatics, these PCs have been referred to as 'metagenes' or 'super genes' as they represent aggregated expression patterns across multiple genes [21]. The application of PCA to RNA-seq data serves multiple critical purposes: it enables exploratory data analysis and visualization in 2D or 3D space, facilitates clustering analysis of genes or samples, and supports regression analysis by reducing the dimensionality of gene expressions to a manageable number of covariates [21].

However, the suitability of PCA is profoundly contingent on appropriate normalization and transformation of the raw count data [22]. RNA-seq data are fundamentally count-based by nature and exhibit technical artifacts including variable sequencing depths between samples and compositional biases [23] [11]. Without proper normalization, these technical variations can dominate the principal components, potentially obscuring the biological signal of interest. As highlighted in a comprehensive evaluation of normalization methods, although PCA score plots may appear similar across different normalization techniques, the biological interpretation of the models can depend heavily on the normalization method applied [3]. Thus, understanding how to distinguish biological signal from technical noise through appropriate preprocessing choices represents a critical competency for researchers analyzing transcriptomic data.

Understanding Technical Noise in RNA-seq Data

Technical noise in RNA-seq data originates from multiple sources throughout the experimental workflow. The compositional nature of RNA-seq data means that an increase in the count of one transcript necessarily leads to decreases in the observed counts of others due to the fixed upper limit of sequencing depth [11]. This fundamental property creates dependencies between gene expressions that must be accounted for during analysis. Additional sources of technical variation include: library preparation protocols (e.g., differences in RNA enrichment, cDNA amplification), sequencing platform characteristics, batch effects from processing samples at different times or locations, and cell size factors in single-cell RNA-seq that cause substantial differences in total counts between cells [23] [24].

The sparsity of RNA-seq data, particularly prominent in single-cell applications where zero counts (dropouts) may affect even highly expressed genes, presents another significant challenge for PCA [11]. These zeros may represent either true biological absence of expression or technical artifacts, and distinguishing between them is non-trivial. When PCA is applied to raw counts or improperly normalized data, the resulting components often reflect these technical artifacts rather than biological variation. Studies have demonstrated that suspicious findings, such as biologically implausible differentiation trajectories, can emerge from PCA and downstream analyses when technical noise is not adequately addressed [11].

The challenge is further compounded by the fact that PCA, as a variance-based method, will naturally assign greater importance to features with larger variances. In RNA-seq data, highly expressed genes often exhibit higher variance across samples, which doesn't necessarily correlate with biological importance. Technical artifacts can also create confounding correlations between genes that PCA may erroneously interpret as biological structure. Therefore, the choice of normalization and transformation method prior to PCA becomes paramount for ensuring that the computed components reflect meaningful biology rather than experimental artifact.

Normalization Methods for Signal Extraction

Method Categories and Theoretical Foundations

Multiple methodological approaches have been developed to normalize RNA-seq data for PCA, each with distinct theoretical foundations and underlying assumptions about the data structure. These can be broadly categorized into log-transform methods, count-based models, and compositional data analysis approaches.

Log-transform methods, such as the conventional log-normalization implemented in tools like Seurat, apply a transformation of the form Ỹ = log(1 + f·(Y/∑Y)), where Y represents the raw counts and f is a scaling factor (often 10,000) [23]. This approach aims to stabilize the variance across the dynamic range of expression values and make the data more approximately normally distributed, which is theoretically preferable for PCA [23]. However, concerns have been raised that log transformation may induce artificial bias and exaggerate the effects of small counts [23].

Count-based models directly model the count nature of RNA-seq data using discrete distributions. Methods like GLM-PCA, scTransform, and analytic Pearson residuals assume either a Poisson or negative binomial distribution for the observed counts [23]. These approaches calculate normally distributed residuals after accounting for technical factors such as cell size factors and batch effects. For example, scTransform fits a negative binomial model with parameters estimated through regularized regression, then computes residuals as R = (Y - μ)/√(μ + μ²/θ), where μ is the fitted mean and θ is the dispersion parameter [23]. These residuals are then used as input for PCA, theoretically providing a more appropriate representation of the biological variation.

Compositional data analysis (CoDA) frameworks, particularly centered-log-ratio (CLR) transformation, explicitly treat RNA-seq data as compositions where only relative abundances are meaningful [11]. This approach applies a log-ratio transformation after addressing zeros through count addition schemes or imputation. CoDA methods provide scale invariance, sub-compositional coherence, and permutation invariance, making them robust to many technical artifacts [11].

Comparative Evaluation of Methods

A comprehensive evaluation of twelve normalization methods revealed significant differences in their impact on PCA results [3]. While the overall visual appearance of PCA score plots was often similar across methods, the biological interpretation derived from gene loadings and pathway enrichment analysis varied considerably [3]. This highlights that the choice of normalization method affects not just sample separation but also which genes are identified as drivers of the principal components.

Table 1: Comparison of RNA-seq Normalization Methods for PCA

Method	Theoretical Basis	Handling of Zeros	Computational Efficiency	Key Advantages
Log-normalization	Empirical log transform with scaling factor	Natural handling via log(1+x)	High efficiency	Simple, widely implemented, fast
scTransform	Negative binomial regression with regularized parameters	Model-based imputation	Moderate (improved with FastRNA)	Directly models counts, handles batch effects
Analytic Pearson Residuals	Poisson or negative binomial with fixed dispersion	Model-based calculation	Moderate	Parsimonious model, analytically tractable
CLR (CoDA)	Compositional data analysis	Requires count addition or imputation	Moderate	Scale invariant, coherent properties
FastRNA	Count model with algebraic optimization	Model-based approach	Very high (minutes for 2M cells)	Extreme memory efficiency, batch correction

In single-cell RNA-seq, benchmark studies have shown that count-based methods generally outperform log normalization in preserving biological variation while reducing technical noise [23]. The recently developed FastRNA method provides a particularly efficient implementation of count-based normalization, using unique algebraic optimizations to avoid forming large dense residual matrices in memory [23]. This approach reduces time and memory requirements by orders of magnitude compared to other count-based methods while maintaining the theoretical advantages of directly modeling count data.

For bulk RNA-seq, the optimal choice may depend on study-specific factors. Research indicates that log-transform methods remain effective for many applications, while compositional approaches may offer advantages in scenarios with significant compositional biases [11]. A critical consideration is that methods performing well in internal validation may show differential performance in cross-study predictions, with batch effect correction sometimes improving but occasionally worsening classification performance when applied to independent datasets [24].

Experimental Protocols for PCA Normalization

Protocol 1: Standard Log-Normalization for Bulk RNA-seq

This protocol describes the standard log-normalization approach commonly used for bulk RNA-seq data prior to PCA, as implemented in tools like DESeq2 and Seurat.

Materials and Reagents:

• Raw count matrix (genes × samples)
• Metadata table specifying experimental conditions
• R statistical environment with appropriate packages (DESeq2, limma, etc.)

Procedure:

• Data Preparation: Begin with a raw count matrix where rows represent genes and columns represent samples. Ensure that the metadata table includes all relevant sample information and that sample names match between the count matrix and metadata.

• Filtering: Remove uninformative genes with low counts across samples. A common threshold is to keep genes with at least 10 counts in a minimum number of samples (e.g., 90% of samples per experimental group).

• Normalization: Calculate normalized counts using the formula: Ỹ = log2(1 + f · (Y/∑Y)) where Y represents raw counts, ∑Y is the total counts per sample, and f is a scaling factor (typically 10,000 for bulk RNA-seq or the median total count across samples).

• Feature Selection: Select highly variable genes based on their expression variance across samples. This step reduces noise by focusing on genes with biological variation.

• Scaling: Center each gene to mean zero and scale to unit variance using z-score transformation: Z = (Ỹ - μ)/σ where μ is the mean expression and σ is the standard deviation for each gene.

• PCA Implementation: Perform PCA on the scaled and normalized data using singular value decomposition (SVD). Visualize the first 2-3 principal components to assess sample separation and identify potential outliers.

Troubleshooting Tips:

• If technical batches are visible in the PCA plot, consider applying batch correction methods such as ComBat before PCA.
• If the PCA shows extreme separation driven by few samples, check for sample-specific artifacts and consider more aggressive filtering.

Protocol 2: Count-Based Normalization with scTransform

This protocol outlines the procedure for normalizing single-cell RNA-seq data using count-based models like scTransform prior to PCA.

Materials and Reagents:

• Raw count matrix (genes × cells)
• Cell metadata including batch information if available
• R environment with Seurat and glmGamPoi packages

Procedure:

• Data Preparation: Load the raw count matrix and metadata. For large datasets, ensure sufficient computational resources are available.

• Parameter Estimation: Fit a regularized negative binomial model for each gene using the following specification: Y ~ log(m) + batch where Y is the raw count, m is the total counts per cell (cell size factor), and batch is an optional categorical batch variable.

• Residual Calculation: Compute Pearson residuals for each gene and cell using the formula: R = (Y - μ)/√(μ + μ²/θ) where μ is the fitted mean from the negative binomial model and θ is the gene-specific dispersion parameter.

• Feature Selection: Identify genes showing significant variation beyond what would be expected from technical noise based on the residuals.

• PCA Implementation: Perform PCA directly on the residual matrix. The resulting components will represent biological variation after accounting for technical factors included in the model.

Troubleshooting Tips:

• If convergence issues occur with the negative binomial model, try increasing the regularization parameters or using the glmGamPoi package for more stable estimation.
• For very large datasets (>100,000 cells), consider using FastRNA instead of scTransform for better computational efficiency [23].

Decision Workflow for Method Selection

The following diagram illustrates the decision process for selecting an appropriate normalization method based on data characteristics and research goals:

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools for RNA-seq Normalization

Category	Item	Function	Implementation
Statistical Environments	R Statistical Environment	Primary platform for statistical analysis and implementation of normalization methods	Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN)
	Python with scikit-learn	Alternative platform for machine learning approaches to normalization	Python Package Index (PyPI)
Normalization Packages	DESeq2	Bulk RNA-seq analysis with size factor normalization	Bioconductor
	Seurat	Single-cell analysis suite with log-normalization and SCTransform	CRAN
	glmGamPoi	Fast estimation for negative binomial models in count-based normalization	Bioconductor
	FastRNA	Extremely efficient count-based normalization for large datasets	GitHub repository
Quality Assessment Tools	EMBEDR	Quality assessment for dimensionality reduction outputs	Python package
	VCF2PCACluster	Memory-efficient PCA for large-scale genomic data	GitHub repository
Data Integration Tools	ComBat	Batch effect correction for removing technical variation	R/sva package
	Harmony	Integration of multiple datasets with efficient algorithm	R package

Advanced Considerations and Emerging Methods

Addressing the Zero-Inflation Problem

The prevalence of zero counts in RNA-seq data, particularly in single-cell applications, presents a significant challenge for normalization methods. Compositional data analysis (CoDA) approaches address this through innovative count addition schemes that enable log-ratio transformations without distorting the data structure [11]. These methods, such as the centered-log-ratio (CLR) transformation, have demonstrated advantages in dimension reduction visualization, clustering, and trajectory inference in both real and simulated datasets [11]. CLR transformation has been shown to provide more distinct and well-separated clusters in dimension reductions and improve trajectory inference by eliminating suspicious trajectories potentially caused by dropouts [11].

Computational Efficiency for Large-Scale Data

As RNA-seq datasets grow to include millions of cells, computational efficiency becomes a critical consideration in method selection. FastRNA represents a significant advancement in this area, achieving orders of magnitude improvement in time and memory requirements compared to standard log normalization and other count-based methods [23]. This performance gain is achieved through unique algebraic optimization that completely avoids the formation of large dense residual matrices in memory [23]. Similarly, tools like VCF2PCACluster demonstrate that memory-efficient PCA implementations can handle tens of millions of genetic variants with minimal memory requirements by using processing strategies that operate in a line-by-line manner [25].

Theoretical Advancements in Signal Extraction

Emerging methodologies like Biwhitened PCA (BiPCA) offer theoretically grounded frameworks for rank estimation and data denoising across omics modalities [22]. This approach overcomes fundamental difficulties with handling count noise by adaptively rescaling rows and columns—a rigorous procedure that standardizes noise variances across both dimensions [22]. Through simulations and analysis of over 100 datasets spanning seven omics modalities, BiPCA has demonstrated reliable recovery of data rank and enhanced biological interpretability of count data [22].

The separation of biological signal from technical noise in PCA plots of RNA-seq data requires careful consideration of normalization strategies. The choice between log-transform methods, count-based models, and compositional approaches should be guided by data characteristics including sparsity, sample size, presence of batch effects, and computational resources. While visual PCA plots may appear similar across methods, the biological interpretation can vary substantially, emphasizing the importance of method selection for valid biological conclusions. As RNA-seq technologies continue to evolve toward higher throughput and more complex experimental designs, emerging methods that offer improved theoretical foundations and computational efficiency will further enhance our ability to extract meaningful biological insights from transcriptomic data.

Choosing Your Method: A Practical Walkthrough of Normalization Techniques for PCA

RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) has become the predominant method for transcriptome profiling, but raw count data is not directly comparable due to technical biases. Within-sample normalization is an essential first step that adjusts raw counts to account for two major technical variables: sequencing depth (the total number of reads per sample) and gene length (the transcript length in kilobases) [26] [27]. Without this correction, longer genes naturally accumulate more reads than shorter genes at identical expression levels, and samples with deeper sequencing appear to have higher expression overall [26] [28].

Among within-sample normalization methods, TPM (Transcripts Per Kilobase Million) has emerged as a preferred metric because it produces normalized values where the sum of all TPMs in each sample is constant, enabling more intuitive proportional comparisons [29] [27]. This property makes TPM particularly valuable for exploratory analyses such as Principal Component Analysis (PCA), where accurate representation of gene contributions across samples is crucial [3]. This protocol details the implementation and application of TPM normalization within the context of preparing RNA-seq data for multivariate analysis.

TPM Fundamentals: Theory and Calculation

Definition and Rationale

TPM represents the relative abundance of a transcript in a sample. Conceptually, it answers the question: "If I were to sequence exactly one million full-length transcripts from this sample, how many of them would correspond to my gene of interest?" [27] This differs from RPKM/FPKM in the order of normalization operations, which ensures that the sum of all TPM values in each sample equals one million [29]. This consistent sum allows TPM values to represent proportional expression, meaning that a TPM value of 3.33 for a gene in two different samples indicates that the same proportion of total reads mapped to that gene in both samples [29].

Table 1: Comparison of Common Within-Sample Normalization Methods

Method	Full Name	Normalization Order	Sum of Normalized Values	Primary Use Case
TPM	Transcripts Per Million	Gene length first, then sequencing depth	Constant (1 million)	Within- and between-sample comparison
RPKM/FPKM	Reads/Fragments Per Kilobase Million	Sequencing depth first, then gene length	Variable across samples	Within-sample comparison only
CPM	Counts Per Million	Sequencing depth only	Constant (1 million)	Between-sample comparison when gene length is irrelevant

Mathematical Formulation

The calculation of TPM involves three sequential steps:

• Normalize for gene length: Divide the read counts by the length of each gene in kilobases, yielding Reads Per Kilobase (RPK). [ RPK = \frac{\text{Read counts}}{\text{Gene length (kb)}} ]

• Calculate scaling factor: Sum all RPK values in the sample and divide by 1,000,000 to obtain a sample-specific "per million" scaling factor. [ \text{Scaling Factor} = \frac{\sum RPK}{1,000,000} ]

• Normalize for sequencing depth: Divide each RPK value by the scaling factor to obtain TPM. [ TPM = \frac{RPK}{\text{Scaling Factor}} ] [29]

This order of operations contrasts with RPKM/FPKM, which normalizes for sequencing depth first and then gene length. The TPM approach ensures that the normalized values are proportional to the relative molar RNA concentration of each transcript [29] [28].

Figure 1: TPM Calculation Workflow. The process involves three sequential steps to normalize raw counts for both gene length and sequencing depth.

Comparative Analysis of Normalization Methods

Performance in Downstream Applications

The choice of normalization method significantly impacts downstream analysis results. A 2021 comparative study using patient-derived xenograft (PDX) models revealed that while normalized count data (like those produced by between-sample methods) provided superior reproducibility across replicate samples, TPM demonstrated advantages for specific analytical contexts [30]. The study employed multiple evaluation metrics including coefficient of variation (CV), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and cluster analysis to assess method performance [30].

Research has shown that TPM normalization is particularly valuable when analyzing data where the proportional representation of transcripts is biologically meaningful, such as in metabolic modeling or pathway analysis [31]. However, it's important to recognize that TPM values represent relative abundance within a population of sequenced transcripts, meaning they depend on the composition of the RNA population in a sample [28]. When RNA populations differ substantially between samples (e.g., due to different RNA preparation protocols), TPM values may not be directly comparable [28].

Table 2: Normalization Method Performance Across Analytical Applications

Application	Recommended Method	Performance Evidence	Key Consideration
Differential Expression	Normalized counts (DESeq2, edgeR)	Lower CV, higher ICC across replicates [30]	Removes composition biases more effectively
PCA & Exploratory Analysis	TPM or between-sample methods	Preserves biological variation while reducing technical artifacts [3]	Method choice affects interpretation of principal components
Metabolic Modeling	TPM, RLE, or TMM	Captures disease-associated genes with ~80% accuracy for Alzheimer's data [31]	Within-sample methods show higher variability in model content
Cross-Study Comparisons	Batch-corrected TPM or normalized counts	Requires additional adjustment for protocol differences [28] [27]	TPM alone insufficient when protocols differ substantially

Limitations and Considerations

A critical limitation of TPM and other within-sample normalization methods is their vulnerability to compositional biases [28]. When highly expressed genes are present in one condition but not another, they consume a substantial portion of the total reads, artificially deflating the TPM values of other genes in that sample [28]. This effect was dramatically demonstrated in a study comparing poly(A)+ selection and rRNA depletion protocols, where the top three genes represented 75% of sequenced transcripts in rRNA-depleted samples compared to only 4.2% in poly(A)+ selected samples [28].

Additionally, a comprehensive evaluation of 12 normalization methods revealed that while PCA score plots often appear similar regardless of normalization method, the biological interpretation of the models can depend heavily on the normalization approach used [3]. This highlights the importance of selecting a normalization strategy that aligns with both the data characteristics and the research question.

Experimental Protocol: Implementing TPM Normalization for PCA

Computational Implementation

This protocol assumes starting from a count matrix with genes as rows and samples as columns, along with a gene length file containing transcript lengths in kilobases.

Step 1: Calculate Reads Per Kilobase (RPK)

• Input: Raw count matrix, Gene length data
• Operation: Divide each gene count by its corresponding length in kilobases
• Software: R, Python, or any statistical programming environment
• R code example:

Step 2: Calculate Sample-Specific Scaling Factors

• Operation: Sum all RPK values for each sample and divide by 1,000,000
• Purpose: Creates a per-sample normalization factor
• R code example:

Step 3: Calculate TPM Values

• Operation: Divide each RPK value by its corresponding sample scaling factor
• Output: TPM-normalized expression matrix
• R code example:

Step 4: Quality Assessment

• Verification: Confirm that column sums equal 1,000,000 (± rounding error)
• Visualization: Plot distributions of TPM values across samples to identify outliers
• R code example:

Integration with PCA Workflow

Pre-PCA Processing:

• Filter lowly expressed genes: Remove genes with TPM < 1 in more than 90% of samples [26]
• Log transformation: Apply log2(TPM + 1) to reduce the influence of extreme values
• Standardization: Consider scaling genes to unit variance if using correlation matrix for PCA

PCA Execution:

• Input: Processed TPM matrix (genes as variables, samples as observations)
• Method: Singular Value Decomposition (SVD) on centered (and optionally scaled) data
• Output: Principal Components (PCs) representing directions of maximum variance

Interpretation Considerations:

• When using TPM-normalized data, PC loadings represent genes contributing most to variance in relative transcript abundance
• Compare results with those from between-sample normalization methods to identify robust patterns [3]

Table 3: Key Computational Tools and Resources for TPM Normalization and PCA

Tool/Resource	Function	Application Context
RSEM	Transcript quantification and TPM calculation	Alignment-based RNA-seq analysis [30]
Kallisto	Pseudoalignment and TPM estimation	Rapid transcript-level quantification [28]
Salmon	Transcript quantification and TPM estimation	Accurate, fast quantification without full alignment [28]
DESeq2	Between-sample normalization and differential expression	Comparative analysis following TPM normalization [30] [31]
edgeR	Between-sample normalization and differential expression	Alternative to DESeq2 for RNA-seq analysis [31]
SCONE	Comprehensive normalization evaluation framework	Performance assessment of multiple normalization methods [32]
Omics Playground	Interactive analysis platform with multiple normalization options	User-friendly implementation of TPM and other methods [27]

TPM normalization provides a biologically intuitive approach for within-sample normalization that corrects for both gene length and sequencing depth biases. Its property of constant sum across samples makes it particularly valuable for analyses where proportional representation of transcripts is meaningful, such as in pathway analysis or metabolic modeling [31]. However, researchers should be aware of its limitations, particularly its sensitivity to differences in RNA population composition across samples [28].

For PCA and other exploratory analyses, the choice between TPM and between-sample normalization methods (e.g., TMM, RLE) should be guided by the specific research question and experimental design. When the goal is to identify patterns in relative transcript abundance, TPM is often appropriate. When comparing absolute expression changes across conditions, between-sample methods may be more suitable [30] [31]. In practice, running PCA with multiple normalization approaches and assessing the robustness of findings across methods provides the most reliable approach to exploratory transcriptome analysis [3].

In RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq) analysis, accurate between-sample normalization is a critical prerequisite for meaningful comparative analyses, including Principal Component Analysis (PCA). A fundamental challenge is composition bias, a technical artifact that arises when a few highly expressed genes or global shifts in expression alter the library's transcriptome composition. This bias can severely distort gene expression measurements, leading to incorrect biological interpretations. In such scenarios, the total read count or library size becomes an unreliable scaling factor. For instance, if a single gene is extremely highly expressed in one sample, it consumes a substantial fraction of the sequencing reads. This consequently depletes the read counts for other genes, making them appear down-regulated compared to another sample, even if their true expression levels are unchanged [33] [34]. This effect is schematically represented in the diagram below.

Advanced normalization methods like the Trimmed Mean of M-values (TMM) and DESeq2's median-of-ratios were specifically designed to address this issue. They operate on a core assumption: in a typical RNA-Seq experiment, the majority of genes are not differentially expressed (DE) [34] [35]. By leveraging this assumption, these methods robustly estimate scaling factors that account for both sequencing depth and RNA composition, thereby enabling a more accurate comparison of expression levels across samples for downstream analyses like PCA and differential expression [33] [3].

Understanding the Normalization Methods

The following table summarizes the key characteristics of TMM and DESeq2's median-of-ratios methods, alongside other common techniques, highlighting their suitability for correcting composition bias.

Table 1: Comparison of RNA-Seq Normalization Methods

Method	Accounts for Sequencing Depth	Accounts for RNA Composition	Suitable for DE Analysis	Recommended Use
CPM	Yes	No	No	Gene count comparisons between replicates of the same group [33] [1].
TPM	Yes	No	No	Gene count comparisons within a sample; NOT for between-sample comparisons or DE analysis [33] [36].
RPKM/FPKM	Yes	No	No	Not recommended; normalized counts are not comparable between samples [33] [35].
DESeq2 (Median-of-Ratios)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Gene count comparisons between samples and for DE analysis [33] [1].
TMM (edgeR)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Gene count comparisons between and within samples and for DE analysis [33] [35].

The Median-of-Ratios Method (DESeq2)

The median-of-ratios method, implemented in the DESeq2 package, employs a multi-step procedure that is robust to composition effects. The workflow involves creating a pseudo-reference sample and calculating sample-specific size factors, as illustrated below.

This method is considered robust because the final size factor is based on the median value. The median is not skewed by a small number of extremely high or low ratios, which typically represent genuine differentially expressed genes. Therefore, the normalization factor reflects the systematic technical bias affecting the non-DE majority of genes [33].

The Trimmed Mean of M-values (TMM) Method

The TMM normalization method, implemented in the edgeR package, uses a different but philosophically similar approach. It selects a reference sample and then, for every other test sample, it calculates gene-wise log-fold changes (M-values) and expression intensities (A-values). The mean of the M-values is calculated after trimming a predetermined percentage (default 30%) of both the low and high end of the M-value distribution, as well as genes with extreme A-values. This trimmed mean is then used as the normalization factor between the test and reference samples [37] [35]. This trimming strategy makes TMM robust to outliers and highly expressed genes that could otherwise bias the normalization.

Practical Protocols for Normalization

Protocol 1: Normalization with DESeq2 in R

This protocol details the steps to perform median-of-ratios normalization using the DESeq2 package in R, generating normalized count data suitable for downstream PCA.

Research Reagent Solutions:

• DESeq2 R Package: Provides the core functions for data import, normalization, and differential expression analysis [33] [38].
• tidyverse R Package: A collection of packages (e.g., dplyr, tidyr) for efficient data manipulation and formatting [38].

Methodology:

• Data Import and Formatting: Read the raw count matrix and sample information into R. The count matrix should have genes as rows and samples as columns. Format the data into a numeric matrix, ensuring that the column names of the count matrix match the row names of the sample information table and are in the identical order [38].
• DESeqDataSet Object Construction: Create a DESeqDataSet object from the count matrix and sample information. This object stores the data, design, and all intermediate calculations.

• Size Factor Estimation and Normalization: The estimateSizeFactors function automatically performs the median-of-ratios normalization. It calculates the size factors and stores them within the DESeqDataSet object.

• Extracting Normalized Counts: Retrieve the normalized count matrix using the counts function and setting normalized=TRUE. These normalized counts are now corrected for sequencing depth and composition bias.

Protocol 2: Normalization with TMM in R

This protocol outlines the steps to perform TMM normalization using the edgeR package in R.

Research Reagent Solutions:

• edgeR R Package: Provides the functions for the TMM normalization and differential expression analysis of count data [37] [35].
• limma R Package: Often used in conjunction with edgeR, especially for voom transformation which can be applied to TMM-normalized counts for linear modeling.

Methodology:

• Data Import and DGEList Object Construction: Read the raw count matrix and create a DGEList object, which is the central data structure in edgeR.

• TMM Factor Calculation: The calcNormFactors function performs TMM normalization by calculating a set of scaling factors for the library sizes.

• Obtaining Normalized Counts (CPM): While the normalization factors are incorporated directly into edgeR's statistical model for differential expression, you can output normalized counts as Counts Per Million (CPM) using the cpm function. The log parameter can be set to TRUE to return log2-CPM values, which are often used for visualization and PCA.

Application in PCA and Downstream Analysis

The choice of normalization method can significantly impact the results and biological interpretation of exploratory analyses like Principal Component Analysis (PCA). A 2024 study highlighted that while PCA score plots might look superficially similar across different normalizations, the biological interpretation of the principal components can depend heavily on the method used [3]. Normalization methods that fail to correct for composition bias can lead to sample separations in PCA that are driven by technical artifacts rather than true biological variation.

Table 2: Normalization Impact on Downstream Analysis Interpretation

Analysis Type	Impact of Improper Normalization	Role of TMM/DESeq2
PCA & Clustering	Samples may cluster based on technical biases (e.g., sequencing depth) or a few dominant genes, masking true biological groups [3].	Removes composition and depth effects, allowing biological variation to drive sample separation in the PCA space.
Differential Expression	High false positive or false negative rates; non-DE genes may be called significant due to apparent shifts caused by a few DE genes [34].	Provides a stable baseline for statistical testing by ensuring that the majority of non-DE genes are comparable across samples.
Gene Ranking	The list of most variable genes used for analysis may be skewed towards highly abundant transcripts or those affected by technical bias.	Produces a more reliable ranking of variable genes that is reflective of biology.

For PCA, it is standard practice to use the normalized counts obtained from either DESeq2's median-of-ratios or the log2-CPM values generated from TMM-normalized data. These values provide a stable foundation for identifying the main sources of biological variation in the dataset.

The Scientist's Toolkit

Table 3: Essential Computational Tools for RNA-Seq Normalization

Tool / Resource	Function	Use Case
DESeq2	Performs median-of-ratios normalization and differential expression analysis using a negative binomial model [33] [1].	The preferred choice for robust DE analysis and normalization when the core assumptions of the method are met.
edgeR	Performs TMM normalization and differential expression analysis, also based on a negative binomial model [37] [35].	An excellent alternative to DESeq2, particularly known for its performance on datasets with complex designs or smaller sample sizes.
limma-voom	A transformation method that can be applied to TMM-normalized log-CPM counts to enable the use of powerful linear models [35].	Useful for complex experimental designs with multiple factors.
tximport / tximeta	Tools to import and summarize transcript-level abundance estimates from tools like Salmon into gene-level counts, while preserving correction for gene length and bias.	Used prior to DESeq2/edgeR when working with transcript-level quantifications.

Both the median-of-ratios (DESeq2) and TMM (edgeR) methods are highly effective for between-sample normalization, particularly in correcting for the confounding effects of RNA composition. They form the foundation of most modern RNA-Seq differential expression workflows and are equally suitable for preparing data for PCA.

The choice between them is often nuanced. DESeq2's median-of-ratios can be more robust in situations with very large numbers of differentially expressed genes or when the assumption of a non-DE majority is slightly weakened. TMM's trimming strategy can offer advantages in specific data contexts. In practice, for standard experiments, both methods yield highly correlated results and consistent biological conclusions [37]. The decision can be guided by the broader analysis framework: if the downstream plan involves using the full DESeq2 or edgeR suites for differential testing, it is most coherent to use their respective built-in normalization methods. Ultimately, ensuring that any form of between-sample normalization is applied is the most critical step for a sound and interpretable RNA-Seq analysis.

Normalization is an indispensable step in the RNA-seq analysis workflow, serving to correct raw count data for technical biases that would otherwise confound biological interpretation. When preparing data for Principal Component Analysis (PCA)—a method used to visualize and understand the major sources of variation in a dataset—selecting an appropriate normalization strategy is critical. PCA is sensitive to the variance structure of the data; without proper normalization, technical artifacts such as differences in sequencing depth or RNA composition can dominate the principal components, obscuring the underlying biological signals [26] [39]. The goal of normalization is to remove these uninteresting factors so that the resulting data more accurately reflects true biological differences and similarities [33] [26]. This protocol outlines the methodologies and applications of five common normalization measures, providing a framework for their use in research aimed at drug development and biomarker discovery.

Understanding Normalization Factors

Before selecting a normalization method, it is essential to understand the three primary technical factors that these procedures aim to correct for.

• Sequencing Depth: Variations in the total number of reads sequenced per sample. Accounting for this is necessary for any comparison of expression between samples [33] [35].
• Gene Length: The length of a gene's transcript. Normalizing for length enables meaningful comparison of expression levels between different genes within the same sample, as longer transcripts generate more reads [33] [40].
• RNA Composition: Skewed expression caused by a few highly differentially expressed genes. This can impact the apparent expression of all other genes in a sample and must be accounted for in accurate between-sample comparisons, especially in differential expression analysis [33] [34] [35].

Comparative Table of Normalization Methods

The table below summarizes the key features, formulae, and recommended applications of the five normalization methods.

Table 1: Comparative overview of RNA-seq normalization methods

Method	Full Name	Factors Accounted For	Recommended Use Cases	Not Recommended For
CPM	Counts Per Million [40]	Sequencing depth [35]	Comparing gene expression between replicates of the same sample group; exploratory data analysis [33].	Within-sample comparisons; DE analysis [33].
RPKM/ FPKM	Reads/Fragments Per Kilobase of exon per Million mapped reads [33]	Sequencing depth, Gene length [33]	Historical use: Comparing expression between different genes within a single sample [33].	Between-sample comparisons; DE analysis [33] [30].
TPM	Transcripts Per Million [29]	Sequencing depth, Gene length [35]	Gene count comparisons within a sample; some cross-sample exploratory analysis [33] [35].	Differential expression analysis [30] [35].
TMM	Trimmed Mean of M-values [33]	Sequencing depth, RNA composition [33]	Gene count comparisons between and within samples; DE analysis [33].	Situations with widespread, global expression shifts [34].
Median of Ratios	DESeq2's Median of Ratios [33]	Sequencing depth, RNA composition [33]	Gene count comparisons between samples; DE analysis [33] [30].	Within-sample comparisons [33].

Detailed Methodologies and Protocols

CPM (Counts Per Million)

CPM provides a basic normalization that adjusts only for differences in library size (sequencing depth) across samples [40].

• Formula: CPM = (Reads mapped to gene / Total mapped reads) * 10^6 [40]
• Step-by-Step Protocol:
  • Input: A matrix of raw read counts for genes (rows) across samples (columns).
  • Calculate Total Mapped Reads: For each sample, compute the sum of all reads mapped to genes.
  • Compute Scaling Factor: Divide the total mapped reads for each sample by 1,000,000.
  • Calculate CPM: For each gene in each sample, divide the raw read count by the sample's scaling factor.
  • Output: A matrix of CPM values.

RPKM/FPKM

RPKM (for single-end data) and FPKM (for paired-end data) normalize for both sequencing depth and gene length, but their use for between-sample comparisons is discouraged [33] [29] [36].

• Formula: RPKM or FPKM = Reads (or Fragments) mapped to gene / ( (Gene length in kb) * (Total mapped reads in millions) ) [33] [30]
• Step-by-Step Protocol:
  • Input: Raw counts matrix and a vector of gene lengths in nucleotides.
  • Convert Gene Length: Convert gene lengths from nucleotides to kilobases (kb) by dividing by 1000.
  • Calculate Reads Per Kilobase (RPK): For each gene, divide the raw read count by its length in kb.
  • Calculate Per Million Scaling Factor: For each sample, divide the total mapped reads by 1,000,000.
  • Calculate RPKM/FPKM: For each gene in each sample, divide the RPK value by the sample's per-million scaling factor.
  • Output: A matrix of RPKM or FPKM values.

TPM (Transcripts Per Million)

TPM is similar to RPKM/FPKM but reverses the order of operations, which results in the sum of all TPMs in each sample being equal. This makes it more comparable across samples than RPKM/FPKM [29].

• Formula: TPM = (Reads mapped to gene / Gene length in kb) / (Sum of all (Reads/Length) in millions) [29]
• Step-by-Step Protocol:
  • Input: Raw counts matrix and a vector of gene lengths in nucleotides.
  • Calculate Reads Per Kilobase (RPK): For each gene in each sample, divide the raw read count by its length in kb.
  • Calculate Sample-Specific Scaling Factor: For each sample, sum all RPK values and divide this sum by 1,000,000.
  • Calculate TPM: For each gene in each sample, divide its RPK value by the sample's scaling factor.
  • Output: A matrix of TPM values.

TMM (Trimmed Mean of M-values)

TMM is a between-sample normalization method that is robust to differences in RNA composition and the presence of highly differentially expressed genes [33].

• Core Concept: TMM calculates a scaling factor for each sample based on a weighted trimmed mean of the log expression ratios (M-values) between that sample and a reference sample. The method assumes that the majority of genes are not differentially expressed [33] [34].
• Step-by-Step Protocol (as implemented in edgeR):
  • Input: A matrix of raw read counts.
  • Select a Reference Sample: Typically, the sample whose upper quartile is closest to the mean upper quartile across all samples.
  • Compute M-Values and A-Values: For each gene, calculate the log-fold change (M-value) and average expression (A-value) between the test sample and the reference.
  • Trim and Weight: Trim the data by a fixed percentage (e.g., 30%) of the M-values and A-values to remove highly variable genes and genes with low expression. The remaining genes are weighted based on their A-values.
  • Calculate Scaling Factor: The TMM scaling factor for each test sample is the weighted mean of the M-values for the retained genes.
  • Output: A vector of TMM scaling factors used to adjust library sizes for downstream analysis.

Median-of-Ratios (DESeq2)

The median-of-ratios method used in DESeq2 is designed to be robust to differences in both sequencing depth and RNA composition, making it a standard for differential expression analysis [33] [30].

• Core Concept: The method computes a size factor for each sample by taking the median of the ratios of its counts to a pseudo-reference sample, which is defined by the geometric mean of counts for each gene across all samples [33].
• Step-by-Step Protocol:
  • Input: A matrix of raw read counts.
  • Create a Pseudo-Reference Sample: For each gene, compute the geometric mean of its counts across all samples.
  • Calculate Ratios: For each gene in each sample, compute the ratio of its count to the pseudo-reference count. Genes with a geometric mean of zero are excluded.
  • Compute Size Factor: The size factor for each sample is the median of all its gene ratios (excluding zeros and outliers).
  • Output: A vector of size factors. Normalized counts are obtained by dividing each sample's raw counts by its size factor.

Normalization Workflow for PCA Analysis

The following diagram illustrates a recommended decision workflow for selecting a normalization method, with a specific focus on preparing data for PCA.

Diagram 1: Normalization selection workflow.

For PCA, which is inherently a between-sample comparison, methods that account for RNA composition (TMM and Median-of-Ratios) are strongly preferred. While TPM and CPM can be used for initial exploratory PCA, they risk allowing technical variations to dominate the principal components. Specifically, TPM and FPKM do not adequately handle situations where the RNA composition differs vastly between samples, which is a common scenario in differential expression studies [30] [34]. A recent comparative study on patient-derived xenograft models found that normalized count data (like those from DESeq2's median-of-ratios) showed lower variation between replicates and more accurate clustering in hierarchical clustering analysis compared to TPM and FPKM, underscoring their reliability for analyses that depend on sample-to-sample distances, such as PCA [30].

The Scientist's Toolkit

Table 2: Essential research reagents and software tools

Item	Function in RNA-seq Normalization
DESeq2 (R/Bioconductor)	Software package that implements the median-of-ratios normalization for robust differential expression analysis and between-sample comparisons [33] [30].
edgeR (R/Bioconductor)	Software package that provides the TMM normalization method, suitable for datasets with different RNA compositions [33] [35].
HTSeq / featureCounts	Tools used to generate the raw count matrices from aligned sequencing reads (BAM files), which serve as the input for all normalization methods [30].
RSEM	A popular tool for transcript-level quantification that outputs estimated counts, TPM, and FPKM values [30].
Seurat (R)	A comprehensive toolkit for single-cell RNA-seq analysis, which includes its own log-normalization method, though the principles of between-sample normalization still apply [39].
High-Quality Reference Genome & Annotation	A curated set of gene models (GTF file) is essential for accurate read alignment and assignment, which forms the foundation of any count-based normalization [30].

In the analysis of RNA-sequencing data, normalization is an essential step that adjusts raw count data for technical variations, such as sequencing depth and gene length, to ensure that biological differences can be accurately discerned [41] [27]. When the analytical goal involves exploratory analysis using Principal Component Analysis (PCA), the choice of normalization method becomes critically important. PCA is a multivariate technique that projects high-dimensional data onto a new set of orthogonal axes (principal components) that capture the greatest variance [42] [43]. However, the structure uncovered by PCA—including sample clustering and the biological interpretation of components—can depend heavily on the normalization technique applied [3]. This protocol provides a detailed, step-by-step guide for normalizing RNA-seq count data within the R environment and preparing it for PCA, framed within a broader research context on how normalization choices impact the outcome and interpretation of transcriptome mapping studies [3] [44].

Background and Key Concepts

The Need for Normalization in RNA-seq Data

RNA-seq data is fundamentally relative; the number of reads mapped to a gene is influenced not only by its true expression level but also by technical factors including the total number of sequenced reads per sample (sequencing depth), the length of its transcript, and the composition of the overall transcript population [41] [27]. Without correction, these technical artifacts can dominate the signal in downstream analyses. For instance, a sample with a deeper sequencing depth will have higher counts across all genes compared to a shallower sample, which could be misinterpreted as a global increase in gene expression. Normalization methods are designed to minimize these biases, making expression levels comparable within and between samples [27].

Principal Component Analysis (PCA) in Transcriptomics

PCA is a dimensionality reduction technique that identifies the directions in data—the principal components (PCs)—that capture the maximum variance [42] [43]. In transcriptomics, where datasets can contain expressions for tens of thousands of genes across numerous samples, PCA is invaluable for visualization, quality control, and exploratory analysis. It can reveal dominant patterns, such as batch effects or the separation of sample groups (e.g., disease vs. control), in a two- or three-dimensional space. The PCA solution is derived from the covariance or correlation structure of the data, meaning that the outcome is directly influenced by the scaling and normalization of the input variables (genes) [3] [43].

The Interplay of Normalization and PCA

Normalization directly shapes the covariance structure from which principal components are derived. A comprehensive evaluation of 12 normalization methods demonstrated that while PCA score plots might appear similar across different methods, the biological interpretation of the models, including gene ranking and pathway enrichment results, can vary significantly [3]. Therefore, selecting an appropriate normalization method is not merely a preprocessing step but a key analytical decision that influences all subsequent conclusions.

Normalization strategies can be broadly categorized based on their scope of correction. The table below summarizes common methods used in RNA-seq analysis.

Table 1: Common RNA-seq Normalization Methods and Their Characteristics

Normalization Method	Scope	Corrects For	Key Assumption	Suitability for PCA
TPM (Transcripts Per Million) [27]	Within-sample	Sequencing depth, Gene length	The sum of all TPMs is consistent across samples.	Good, but often requires subsequent between-sample normalization.
FPKM/RPKM [27]	Within-sample	Sequencing depth, Gene length	Similar to TPM, but order of operations differs.	Similar to TPM; less comparable between samples.
TMM (Trimmed Mean of M-values) [44] [27]	Between-sample	Sequencing depth, RNA composition	The majority of genes are not differentially expressed.	Excellent; reduces false positives in downstream models [44].
RLE (Relative Log Expression) [44]	Between-sample	Sequencing depth	Similar to TMM; uses a median-based scaling factor.	Excellent; produces consistent, low-variability models [44].
GeTMM [44]	Both	Gene length, Sequencing depth	Combines gene-length correction with between-sample normalization.	Excellent; reconciles within- and between-sample approaches [44].
CPM (Counts Per Million) [27]	Within-sample	Sequencing depth	Does not correct for gene length.	Poor for direct use; ignores gene length and composition bias.

Recent benchmarking studies have shown that between-sample normalization methods like RLE, TMM, and GeTMM enable the production of models with considerably lower variability and more accurate capture of disease-associated genes compared to within-sample methods like TPM and FPKM [44]. This makes them particularly suitable for preparing data for PCA and other multivariate exploratory analyses.

Step-by-Step Protocol in R

This protocol assumes you have a raw count matrix where rows represent genes and columns represent samples.

Software and Package Preparation

First, ensure the necessary R packages are installed and loaded. The following packages are essential for this workflow.

Table 2: Essential R Packages for Normalization and PCA

Package	Function	Installation Command
DESeq2	Performs RLE normalization and differential expression analysis.	BiocManager::install("DESeq2")
edgeR	Performs TMM normalization and differential expression analysis.	BiocManager::install("edgeR")
limma	Provides a unified framework for analysis, including voom transformation.	BiocManager::install("limma")
ggplot2	Creates publication-quality visualizations.	install.packages("ggplot2")
pheatmap or ComplexHeatmap	Creates informative heatmaps.	install.packages("pheatmap")

Data Input and Preprocessing

Read your raw count data and any associated metadata (e.g., sample group, batch).

Normalization Procedures

Here, we demonstrate three key between-sample normalization methods.

RLE Normalization with DESeq2

The RLE method is robust and widely used for its stability [44].

TMM Normalization with edgeR

TMM normalization is another highly effective between-sample method [44] [27].

Alternative: GeTMM Normalization

GeTMM combines the strengths of TPM and TMM [44]. While not available in a single function, it can be implemented as follows:

Variance Stabilization and Transformation

PCA works best on data where the variance is stable across the dynamic range of expression. Raw or CPM-normalized counts exhibit mean-variance dependence, where highly expressed genes have higher variance. A log2 transformation is often applied to stabilize the variance.

The blind=TRUE argument is used when the transformation is intended for exploratory analysis rather than differential testing.

Principal Component Analysis (PCA)

With the normalized and transformed data, perform PCA. It is critical to center the data to mean zero, but scaling each gene to unit variance is a decision that depends on the biological question.

Scaling (scale. = TRUE) gives equal weight to all genes, which can be useful if you believe all genes are equally important, but may also amplify the effect of lowly expressed, noisy genes. For RNA-seq, it is often preferable to not scale, thereby allowing the analysis to be driven by the most highly variable genes.

Visualization and Interpretation

Visualize the first two principal components to assess sample grouping.

To understand what drives the separation, you can examine the loadings (the weight of each gene on the PC).

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Computational Tools for RNA-seq Normalization and PCA

Tool / Resource	Type	Primary Function	Reference / Source
DESeq2	R/Bioconductor Package	Differential expression analysis; RLE normalization.	Bioconductor
edgeR	R/Bioconductor Package	Differential expression analysis; TMM normalization.	Bioconductor
limma	R/Bioconductor Package	Linear models for microarray and RNA-seq data; voom transformation.	Bioconductor
Human Genome Reference (GENCODE)	Reference Transcriptome	Provides gene annotations and transcript lengths for TPM/FPKM calculation.	GENCODE
FastQC	Quality Control Tool	Assesses raw sequence data quality before alignment.	Babraham Bioinformatics
STAR	Read Alignment Tool	Aligns RNA-seq reads to a reference genome.	GitHub
Salmon	Pseudo-alignment Tool	Fast and accurate transcript-level quantification.	GitHub

Workflow Diagram

The following diagram summarizes the complete workflow from raw counts to PCA visualization.

Troubleshooting and Best Practices

• Low Explained Variance in PC1/PC2: If the first two PCs explain a very small fraction of the total variance, strong batch effects may be present. Consider using the removeBatchEffect function from the limma package or the sva package for batch correction after normalization but before PCA [27].
• Check for Outliers: PCA can be sensitive to outlier samples. If a single sample is driving the separation on a principal component, investigate its quality metrics (mapping rates, etc.) to determine if it should be excluded.
• Covariate Adjustment: For human clinical data, covariates like age and gender can influence gene expression. Studies have shown that adjusting for these covariates after normalization can improve the accuracy of downstream models [44]. This can be done by including covariates in the design matrix when using limma's voom method.
• Method Selection: Benchmarking studies consistently recommend between-sample methods like RLE, TMM, or GeTMM for tasks like building condition-specific metabolic models from transcriptome data, as they reduce variability and false positive predictions [44]. We recommend starting with RLE or TMM for PCA.

Normalization is a critical pre-processing step in RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) data analysis, designed to remove non-biological technical variations, thereby enabling meaningful comparisons of gene expression levels between samples [45]. These technical variations can arise from factors such as differing sequencing depths, library preparation protocols, and RNA integrity. The necessity for robust normalization is further amplified when working with data from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissues or from single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNAseq) platforms, as these data types present unique challenges not typically encountered with standard fresh-frozen (FF) bulk RNA-seq data [45] [46]. For FFPE samples, the fixation process leads to RNA degradation and fragmentation, while scRNAseq data is characterized by its high sparsity, with a high prevalence of zero counts representing dropouts [45] [46].

Principal Component Analysis (PCA) is a fundamental dimension-reduction technique frequently employed to visualize the overall similarity and dissimilarity between samples in a high-dimensional gene expression dataset [47] [4]. It transforms the original variables (gene counts) into a new set of variables, the principal components (PCs), which are linear combinations of the original genes that capture the greatest variance in the data [4]. The quality and reliability of a PCA plot are profoundly influenced by the input data. Performing PCA on raw, unnormalized counts can lead to misleading results where the largest sources of variation reflect technical artifacts rather than true biological signals. Therefore, selecting an appropriate normalization strategy is paramount to ensure that the patterns revealed by PCA, and subsequent analyses, are biologically interpretable and valid. This application note details the specific considerations and protocols for normalizing FFPE and single-cell RNA-seq data within the context of preparing data for PCA and other exploratory analyses.

Normalization Strategies for FFPE RNA-seq Data

Unique Challenges of FFPE-derived Data

RNA extracted from FFPE tissues is inherently compromised due to the cross-linking nature of formalin fixation and long-term storage, which results in RNA fragmentation, chemical modifications, and continued degradation over time [48] [45]. This degradation manifests in the resulting sequencing data as elevated sparsity, meaning a significantly larger proportion of genes have zero counts compared to data from fresh-frozen (FF) samples [45]. This zero-inflation violates the core assumptions of many normalization methods developed for high-quality FF RNA-seq data. Consequently, applying standard normalization methods to FFPE data without adjustment can lead to biased results and poor performance in downstream analyses like PCA and differential expression.

Recommended Normalization Methods for FFPE Data

Given the challenges, specific methods have been developed or adapted to handle the characteristics of FFPE data. The following table summarizes the key methods:

Table 1: Normalization Methods for FFPE RNA-seq Data

Method	Underlying Principle	Key Advantage for FFPE Data	Consideration
SMIXnorm [45]	A simplified two-component mixture model. Expressed genes are modeled by normal distributions and non-expressed genes by zero-inflated Poisson distributions.	Explicitly models zero-inflation; greatly reduced computing time compared to MIXnorm while maintaining performance.	Specifically designed for FFPE data.
MIXnorm [45]	A complex mixture model with a latent variable structure to distinguish expressed from non-expressed genes.	First method specifically designed for FFPE data; robustly addresses zero-inflation.	Computationally intensive for large datasets.
DESeq [47] [45]	Estimates sample-specific size factors by calculating the geometric mean for each gene and taking the median of ratios to a reference sample.	Robust to moderate levels of zero-inflation; widely used and integrated into standard pipelines (e.g., DESeq2).	May be influenced by the high number of zeros; pre-filtering of low-count genes is often recommended.
TMM [45]	Trims extreme log-fold-changes (M-values) and extreme expression levels (A-values) to calculate a scaling factor relative to a reference sample.	Robust against outliers; performs well when most genes are not differentially expressed.	Performance can degrade with very high sparsity.

The choice between these methods depends on the specific data and research goals. For a dedicated FFPE analysis, SMIXnorm is highly recommended due to its tailored design and computational efficiency. For analyses involving a mix of FF and FFPE samples, or when using established pipelines, DESeq2's median of ratios method is a robust, though less specialized, alternative [47] [45].

Experimental Protocol: Library Preparation and Normalization for FFPE Samples

The reliability of downstream normalization and PCA begins with optimized sample preparation. The following workflow outlines key steps from tissue selection to normalized data, incorporating insights from comparative kit studies [48].

Diagram 1: FFPE RNA-seq Experimental and Normalization Workflow

Key Experimental Steps:

• Pathologist-assisted Macrodissection: Precisely isolate the region of interest (e.g., high tumor content area) from the FFPE block to ensure biological relevance and minimize contamination from surrounding tissues [48].
• RNA Quality Assessment: Evaluate RNA integrity using metrics like the DV200 value (percentage of RNA fragments > 200 nucleotides). A DV200 value below 30% indicates a sample that is too degraded for reliable RNA-seq analysis [48].
• Library Preparation Kit Selection: Choose a kit compatible with degraded RNA and your input requirements. Studies comparing the TaKaRa SMARTer Stranded Total RNA-Seq Kit v2 (Kit A) and the Illumina Stranded Total RNA Prep Ligation with Ribo-Zero Plus (Kit B) have shown that:
  • Kit A is advantageous for low-input scenarios (5-10 ng), crucial when macrodissection yields limited RNA, though it may yield higher ribosomal RNA content [48].
  • Kit B demonstrates superior rRNA depletion and alignment rates but requires higher input amounts (100-200 ng) [48].
• Normalization: Generate a raw count matrix using tools like featureCounts or HTSeq-count. Subsequently, apply a suitable normalization method from Table 1 (e.g., SMIXnorm) to produce a normalized expression matrix ready for PCA.

Normalization Strategies for Single-Cell RNA-seq Data

Unique Challenges of Single-Cell Data

Single-cell RNA sequencing provides unparalleled resolution to study cellular heterogeneity but introduces distinct data characteristics. The most prominent challenge is technical noise, primarily stemming from the low starting amount of RNA per cell, which leads to "dropout" events—where a transcript is expressed in a cell but not detected during sequencing, resulting in a false zero count [46]. This high sparsity and noise can obscure biological signals in PCA, making normalization and proper pre-processing essential.

Recommended Normalization and Pre-processing for scRNA-seq Data

The normalization of scRNA-seq data is often integrated within larger analysis frameworks. The standard workflow for analyzing data from fixed cells (including FFPE-derived cells) is outlined below.

Diagram 2: Single-Cell RNA-seq Analysis Workflow

Key Analytical Steps:

• Quality Control (QC): Filter out low-quality cells based on metrics like the number of detected genes per cell and the percentage of mitochondrial reads. Also, filter genes that are detected in very few cells.
• Normalization: Normalize the unique molecular identifier (UMI) count data to account for differences in sequencing depth per cell. This is typically done by scaling the counts per cell to a constant total (e.g., 10,000), followed by a log-transformation (e.g., log1p). This creates a "log-normalized" expression matrix.
• Identification of Highly Variable Genes (HVGs): To reduce noise in the PCA, it is crucial to perform it not on all genes, but on a subset of genes that exhibit high cell-to-cell variation. This focuses the analysis on genes that are most likely to drive meaningful biological heterogeneity [46].
• PCA on HVGs: The principal component analysis is run using the normalized and scaled expression values of the highly variable genes. The resulting PC scores are used for visualization and further analysis, such as clustering.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Software

Table 2: Key Research Reagents and Software Tools

Item Name	Type	Function / Application	Relevant Context
TaKaRa SMARTer Stranded Total RNA-Seq Kit v2	Library Prep Kit	Generates RNA-seq libraries from low-input and degraded RNA.	Ideal for FFPE samples with limited RNA yield [48].
Illumina Stranded Total RNA Prep with Ribo-Zero Plus	Library Prep Kit	Prepares rRNA-depleted RNA-seq libraries.	For FFPE samples with adequate RNA input; offers high alignment rates [48].
Chromium Fixed RNA Profiling Kit (10x Genomics)	Library Prep Kit	Enables single-cell library preparation from fixed (FFPE) cell suspensions.	Key for scRNAseq of archived FFPE samples [46].
DESeq2 [47]	R/Bioconductor Package	Differential expression analysis and median-of-ratios normalization.	Standard for bulk RNA-seq normalization and analysis.
pcaExplorer [49]	R/Bioconductor Package	Interactive exploration of RNA-seq PCA results; generates reproducible reports.	Visualizing and interpreting PCA outcomes post-normalization.
RSeqNorm [45]	Web Tool / R Package	Web portal for normalizing both FF and FFPE RNA-seq data using 7 methods, including SMIXnorm.	User-friendly platform for applying specialized FFPE normalization.
QuPath [46]	Software	Digital pathology and whole-slide image analysis for cell segmentation and quantification.	Validating cell type proportions from scRNAseq against IHC data.
Seurat [46]	R Package	Comprehensive toolkit for the analysis and interpretation of single-cell genomics data.	Standard pipeline for scRNAseq normalization, HVG selection, and PCA.

The path to robust and biologically insightful PCA visualizations in RNA-seq analysis is paved by careful normalization. For FFPE data, this means moving beyond methods designed for pristine FF samples and adopting specialized tools like SMIXnorm that explicitly model the zero-inflated nature of the data. For single-cell data, it requires an integrated pre-processing workflow that includes depth-normalization and focused analysis on highly variable genes to cut through technical noise. By adhering to the optimized experimental protocols and leveraging the appropriate computational tools outlined in this document, researchers can confidently normalize their data, ensuring that the patterns revealed through Principal Component Analysis are a true reflection of underlying biology, whether exploring tumor heterogeneity from archived tissues or characterizing novel cell types.

Beyond the Basics: Troubleshooting Common PCA Problems Post-Normalization

Principal Component Analysis (PCA) is a cornerstone of exploratory RNA-seq data investigation, used to visualize global gene expression relationships between samples. A common and frustrating challenge arises when expected biological groups fail to separate in the principal component space. This poor separation can stem from two fundamentally different sources: genuine biological similarity or technical artifacts masked by improper normalization. Misdiagnosis can lead to incorrect biological conclusions; attributing technical noise to biology risks missing true signals, while misclassifying biological similarity as a technical issue can lead to over-correction and false discoveries. This Application Note provides a structured framework and practical protocols to systematically diagnose the root cause of poor PCA separation, enabling researchers to make informed decisions about their normalization strategies within the broader context of RNA-seq data analysis.

Background: PCA in RNA-seq Analysis

The Purpose and Pitfalls of PCA

Principal Component Analysis (PCA) is a dimensionality-reduction technique that transforms high-dimensional gene expression data into a lower-dimensional set of summary indices called principal components, which capture the greatest variance in the data. It simplifies large data tables, helping researchers visualize sample relationships, identify patterns, and detect outliers. In RNA-seq analysis, PCA is primarily used to:

• Visualize global expression relationships between samples.
• Identify batch effects or other technical confounders.
• Detect sample outliers that may indicate poor RNA quality or sample mishandling.
• Assess the overall success of an experiment in distinguishing biological groups of interest.

However, the interpretation of PCA plots is complicated by the fact that the largest sources of variance in the raw data are often technical. Variations in sequencing depth, RNA composition, and sample quality can dominate the signal, potentially obscuring meaningful biological variation. This makes appropriate normalization, the process of removing these technical artifacts, absolutely critical before PCA can reliably reveal biological structure.

Key Normalization Concepts for Count Data

RNA-seq data originates as raw counts of sequencing reads mapped to each gene. These counts are not directly comparable between samples due to differences in sequencing depth (library size). Normalization aims to remove this technical variability. Common approaches include:

• Depth Normalization: Simple scaling by library size (e.g., Counts Per Million - CPM).
• Nonlinear Transformation: Stabilizing the variance across genes with different expression levels (e.g., log-transformation).
• Statistical Count Models: Modeling the count data directly using Poisson or Negative Binomial distributions, an approach that has gained significant traction.

A recent advancement is the use of Analytic Pearson Residuals from a Negative Binomial regression model. This method accounts for sequencing depth and variance-mean relationships in a single step, and has been demonstrated to strongly outperform other methods for identifying biologically variable genes and capturing meaningful variation in dimensionality reduction. Its theoretical foundation lies in a rank-one Generalized Principal Component Analysis (GLM-PCA) model, providing a statistically robust framework for normalization.

A Framework for Diagnosis

Diagnosing poor sample separation requires a systematic investigation that moves from assessing data quality to evaluating specific technical confounders. The following diagram outlines this step-by-step diagnostic workflow.

Assess Data Quality

The first step is to rule out data quality issues, as low-quality RNA can introduce overwhelming noise.

• RNA Integrity: Plot your PCA and color the points by the RNA Integrity Number (RIN) or similar quality metrics. A strong association between PC1 and RIN indicates that RNA degradation is a major driver of variance. One study found that up to 28.9% of variation in gene expression levels (PC1) can be associated with RIN scores. Samples with low RIN scores may cluster separately simply due to degradation artifacts.
• Library Size: Check for a correlation between the first principal component (PC1) and the total read count (library size) per sample. A strong correlation suggests that sequencing depth normalization was insufficient. This is a common issue with simple normalization methods like CPM.
• Negative Controls: If available, examine the behavior of negative control samples. In a well-normalized dataset, technical replicates or negative controls should cluster tightly together. Their dispersion often serves as a benchmark for the level of technical noise remaining in the data.

Interrogate Technical Confounders

If data quality is sufficient, investigate other technical variables that can systematically bias expression measurements, known as batch effects.

• Batch Information: Systematically color your PCA plot by all available technical metadata. This includes:
  • Sequencing run, lane, or date
  • Laboratory or personnel who prepared the libraries
  • Library preparation kit or protocol (e.g., polyA-selection vs. ribo-depletion)
  • Reagent lots
• Interpretation: Clustering of samples by these technical factors, rather than the biological conditions of interest, is a classic signature of a batch effect. For example, a dataset comparing Universal Human Reference (UHR) and Human Brain Reference (HBR) samples showed clear separation by library preparation method (Ribo vs. PolyA) when the batch effect was uncorrected, potentially confounding the biological comparison.

Evaluate and Iterate on Normalization Strategy

If technical confounders are identified, the choice of normalization method is critical.

• Advanced Normalization: Move beyond simple depth-scaling and log-transformation. Methods based on statistical count models, such as Analytic Pearson Residuals, are specifically designed to handle the mean-variance relationship inherent in count data and can more effectively remove technical noise, thereby enhancing biological signal.
• Batch Correction: If a strong batch effect persists after normalization, a dedicated batch correction method may be necessary. Options include ComBat-seq (for raw counts) or Harmony (for normalized data or embeddings). A recent large-scale comparison of single-cell RNA-seq batch correction methods found that Harmony consistently performed well, introducing fewer artifacts, though ComBat-seq is also a widely used and effective tool.

Experimental Protocols

This section provides detailed, step-by-step protocols for key diagnostic and corrective procedures.

Protocol: Diagnosing RNA Quality Issues with TIN-based PCA

Purpose: To determine if poor sample separation is driven by variations in RNA quality rather than biology. Principle: The Transcript Integrity Number (TIN) score is a metric that reflects the RNA integrity of a sample. Performing PCA on per-gene TIN scores, rather than expression values, creates a "quality map" that reveals whether samples cluster by degradation patterns.

Materials:

• BAM files from your RNA-seq alignment.
• RSeQC software (version 2.6.4 or higher).
• R statistical environment with ggfortify package.

Procedure:

• Calculate TIN Scores: For each sample, run the tin.py script from the RSeQC package on its BAM file and gene annotation (GTF file).

• Generate TIN Matrix: Compile the output into a matrix where rows are genes and columns are samples, with each cell containing the average TIN score for that gene in that sample.
• Perform and Plot PCA:
  Interpretation: If samples cluster strongly by biological condition in the TIN-PCA plot, it suggests differential RNA degradation between your groups, which is a major confounder. If samples of the same condition are scattered, it indicates variable RNA quality within groups, which can obscure biological signals.

Protocol: Implementing Analytic Pearson Residuals

Purpose: To normalize UMI-based single-cell or bulk RNA-seq data in a way that effectively removes technical noise and stabilizes variance, enhancing biological signal in PCA. Principle: This method fits a regularized Negative Binomial regression model for each gene, with sequencing depth as a covariate. The resulting Pearson residuals are variance-stabilized and centered around zero, making them ideal for downstream PCA.

Materials:

• Raw UMI count matrix.
• Python: Scanpy package (version 1.9 or higher) or the umi-normalization code from Berenslab. In R, the sctransform package can be used.

Procedure (using Scanpy in Python):

Interpretation: After applying Pearson residuals, re-examine the PCA plot. Improved separation of biological groups, along with a reduced correlation between PC1 and total counts, indicates successful removal of technical noise. This method has been shown to outperform alternatives for tasks like highly variable gene selection.

Protocol: Applying ComBat-seq for Batch Correction

Purpose: To remove batch effects from a raw RNA-seq count matrix when such effects have been identified as the cause of poor sample separation. Principle: ComBat-seq uses an empirical Bayes framework to model and adjust for batch effects in raw count data, while preserving biological signals.

Materials:

• Raw count matrix.
• R statistical environment with sva package (>= v3.36.0).

Procedure:

• Prepare Data and Metadata:

• Run ComBat-seq:

• Normalize and Visualize Corrected Data:
  Interpretation: A successful correction will show samples from different batches intermingling within their correct biological groups in the PCA plot. The variance explained by the batch factor should be drastically reduced.

The Scientist's Toolkit

The following table details key computational tools and resources essential for diagnosing and resolving PCA separation issues.

Table 1: Key Research Reagent Solutions for RNA-seq PCA Diagnostics

Tool Name	Type	Primary Function	Relevance to PCA Diagnosis
RSeQC [9]	Software Package	Calculates RNA-seq quality metrics, including TIN scores.	Enables the TIN-based PCA protocol to diagnose RNA degradation issues.
ComBat-seq [19] [18] [50]	R Algorithm (sva package)	Removes batch effects from raw count data using an empirical Bayes framework.	Corrects for technical batch effects identified during the diagnostic workflow.
Harmony [50]	R/Python Algorithm	Integrates datasets by correcting batch effects in a low-dimensional embedding (e.g., PCA space).	An alternative to ComBat-seq, particularly effective for complex integrations and shown to introduce few artifacts.
Analytic Pearson Residuals [51]	Normalization Method (in Scanpy)	Provides normalized, variance-stabilized data from UMI counts using a Negative Binomial model.	A powerful normalization method that can enhance biological signal in PCA, serving as a primary solution.
FastQC	Quality Control Tool	Provides initial sequencing quality reports.	The first step in any RNA-seq QC pipeline to flag potential issues that could propagate to PCA.

Diagnosing the root cause of poor sample separation in PCA is a critical, multi-faceted process. Researchers must systematically rule out data quality issues, such as RNA degradation quantified by TIN scores, and technical confounders like batch effects, before concluding that a lack of separation reflects true biological similarity. The normalization strategy itself is paramount; modern methods like Analytic Pearson Residuals offer a robust framework for isolating biological signal from technical noise. By adopting the structured diagnostic framework and detailed protocols outlined in this document, researchers can confidently interpret their PCA plots, avoid common analytical pitfalls, and ensure that their conclusions about RNA-seq data are built on a solid technical foundation.

Identifying and Correcting for Batch Effects and Other Unwanted Variation

In RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq) analysis, batch effects refer to systematic technical variations that are introduced during different stages of the experimental process, including sample processing, library preparation, sequencing runs, or instrumentation differences [52]. These non-biological variations can create significant heterogeneity across datasets, potentially obscuring true biological signals and compromising the validity of downstream analyses. When integrating multiple datasets or even analyzing a single dataset processed across different batches, these effects can cause samples from the same biological group to cluster separately based on technical artifacts rather than biological reality. The fundamental challenge lies in distinguishing these technical variations from the genuine biological differences of interest, particularly when the magnitude of batch effects rivals or exceeds the biological effect sizes under investigation.

The integration of Principal Component Analysis (PCA) into the RNA-Seq workflow provides a powerful tool for visualizing and identifying these batch effects before they confound statistical interpretations. PCA transforms high-dimensional gene expression data into a lower-dimensional space while preserving maximal variance, enabling researchers to observe global patterns of similarity and difference between samples [4]. When batch effects are present, they often manifest as clear separations between sample groups along principal components, frequently overshadowing biological groupings. Understanding how to detect, diagnose, and correct for these artifacts is therefore essential for ensuring the reliability and reproducibility of RNA-Seq studies, particularly in the context of drug development where accurate biomarker identification and validation are critical [9].

Detecting Batch Effects via Principal Component Analysis

Theoretical Foundation of PCA in Transcriptomics

Principal Component Analysis (PCA) serves as a dimensionality reduction technique that transforms high-dimensional gene expression data into a set of linearly uncorrelated variables called principal components (PCs). These components are ordered such that the first PC (PC1) captures the greatest variance in the data, the second PC (PC2) captures the next greatest variance while being orthogonal to the first, and so on [4] [8]. In practical terms, each RNA-seq sample initially exists as a point in a high-dimensional space where each dimension corresponds to the expression level of a specific gene. PCA identifies the axes of greatest variance in this cloud of points, allowing researchers to project their samples into a lower-dimensional space (typically 2D or 3D) for visualization and exploratory analysis.

The utility of PCA for batch effect detection stems from its ability to capture the largest sources of variation in a dataset, which often include technical artifacts when batch effects are present. The "explained variance ratio" indicates how much of the total variance in the original data is captured by each principal component, with the cumulative explained variance representing the total information retained when using multiple components [4]. When technical batch effects represent a major source of variation in the data, they frequently dominate the early principal components, causing samples to cluster by technical factors rather than biological conditions. This phenomenon provides a visual diagnostic that can alert researchers to potential confounding before proceeding with more advanced analyses.

Practical Implementation of PCA for Batch Effect Detection

Implementing PCA for batch effect detection begins with proper data preparation. The process typically involves creating a gene expression matrix where rows represent samples and columns represent genes, followed by appropriate normalization to account for technical variations such as sequencing depth. The PCA itself is then performed using computational tools such as the prcomp() function in R [18] [8]. The resulting object contains the principal components scores for each sample, which can be visualized in two-dimensional scatter plots (e.g., PC1 vs. PC2) to assess sample relationships.

Interpreting PCA plots requires careful consideration of experimental metadata. Samples should be colored and labeled according to both biological conditions (e.g., disease vs. control) and potential technical factors (e.g., processing date, sequencing lane, library preparation method) [18]. When batch effects are present, samples typically cluster strongly according to these technical groupings rather than biological classes. For example, in a study comparing Universal Human Reference (UHR) and Human Brain Reference (HBR) samples across different library preparation methods (ribo-depletion vs. polyA-enrichment), the PCA plot revealed clear separation by library method rather than biological sample type, indicating a pronounced batch effect [18]. This visual diagnostic provides the first evidence that correction methods may be necessary before valid biological conclusions can be drawn.

Table 1: Key Principles for Interpreting PCA Plots in Batch Effect Detection

Pattern in PCA	Potential Interpretation	Recommended Action
Clear separation by known technical factor	Presence of batch effects	Proceed with batch effect correction
Mixing of samples from different biological conditions	Absence of strong batch effects	Batch correction may not be necessary
Separation by biological condition of interest	Biological signal is preserved	Ideal outcome for downstream analysis
Outlier samples distant from main clusters	Potential sample quality issues	Investigate RNA quality and technical metrics
Separation along later principal components	Subtle batch effects or biological signals	Consider higher PCs in analysis

Batch Effect Correction Methodologies

Batch effect correction methodologies can be broadly categorized into non-procedural methods that rely on direct statistical modeling and procedural approaches that employ multi-step computational workflows to align features or samples across batches [53]. Non-procedural methods include techniques like ComBat, which uses an empirical Bayes framework to adjust for both additive and multiplicative batch effects [54]. These methods effectively adjust for batch biases but may struggle with the inherent sparsity and "dropout" effects characteristic of single-cell RNA-seq data. Procedural methods, including Seurat v3, Harmony, and MMD-ResNet, employ more complex algorithms such as canonical correlation analysis, iterative embedding adjustment, or deep learning to minimize distribution discrepancies between batches while preserving biological variation [53] [52].

The selection of an appropriate correction method depends on multiple factors, including data type (bulk vs. single-cell RNA-seq), study design, and the specific analytical goals. Methods also differ in their ability to preserve key data characteristics during correction. For instance, order-preserving feature—maintaining the relative rankings of gene expression levels within each batch after correction—has been identified as an important but often overlooked property [53]. Methods incorporating this feature, such as those based on monotonic deep learning networks, better retain original inter-gene correlations and differential expression information, which is crucial for downstream biological interpretation.

Detailed Methodological Profiles

ComBat-seq and ComBat-ref build upon the original ComBat framework but specifically model RNA-seq count data using a negative binomial distribution, preserving integer counts suitable for downstream differential expression analysis [54]. ComBat-ref introduces a key innovation by selecting the batch with the smallest dispersion as a reference batch and adjusting all other batches toward this reference. This approach demonstrates superior statistical power in detecting differentially expressed genes compared to earlier methods, particularly when false discovery rate (FDR) is used for statistical testing [54]. The method involves estimating batch-specific dispersion parameters, fitting a generalized linear model that incorporates both batch and biological condition effects, and then adjusting counts from non-reference batches to align with the reference distribution.

Order-Preserving Procedural Methods represent a more recent advancement that addresses limitations in traditional procedural approaches. These methods perform initial clustering and utilize nearest neighbor information within and between batches to construct similarities between clusters [53]. These similarities inform a loss function (weighted maximum mean discrepancy) for batch effect correction, while a monotonic deep learning network ensures intra-gene order-preserving features. Compared to methods like MMD-ResNet, this approach addresses potential class imbalances between batches through weighted design and produces a complete gene expression matrix. Evaluation demonstrates that this method not only improves clustering accuracy but also preserves inter-gene correlation and differential expression information within batches after correction [53].

Harmony and Seurat Integration are widely used procedural methods particularly popular in single-cell RNA-seq analysis. Harmony iteratively adjusts embeddings to align batches while preserving biological variation, using a soft k-means clustering approach to gradually integrate datasets [53] [52]. Seurat v3 employs canonical correlation analysis to identify shared subspaces and mutual nearest neighbors to anchor cells between batches, effectively finding corresponding cell states across datasets [52]. Both methods output integrated embeddings rather than corrected count matrices, making them particularly suitable for downstream clustering and visualization analyses rather than direct differential expression testing.

Table 2: Comparative Analysis of Batch Effect Correction Methods

Method	Underlying Algorithm	Preserves Count Data	Order-Preserving Feature	Best Suited For
ComBat-seq	Empirical Bayes with negative binomial model	Yes	No	Bulk RNA-seq DE analysis
ComBat-ref	Reference-based negative binomial model	Yes	No	Bulk RNA-seq with dispersion differences
Order-Preserving Method	Monotonic deep learning network	Yes	Yes	scRNA-seq with correlation preservation
Harmony	Iterative clustering and integration	No	No	scRNA-seq clustering and visualization
Seurat v3	Canonical correlation analysis and MNN	No	No	scRNA-seq integration and clustering
MMD-ResNet	Deep learning with MMD loss	Yes	No	scRNA-seq with distribution alignment

Experimental Protocols for Batch Effect Correction

Comprehensive Workflow for Batch Effect Assessment and Correction

The following protocol provides a step-by-step framework for identifying and correcting batch effects in RNA-seq data analysis, with specific emphasis on preparation for PCA. This workflow integrates multiple tools and approaches to ensure comprehensive handling of technical variations.

Step 1: Data Preprocessing and Quality Control Begin with standard RNA-seq preprocessing: quality assessment (FastQC, MultiQC), adapter trimming (Trimmomatic, Cutadapt), alignment (STAR, HISAT2), and read quantification (featureCounts, HTSeq-count) [1]. Generate a raw count matrix and perform initial quality assessment using transcript integrity numbers (TIN scores) and other RNA quality metrics [9]. This step is critical as low-quality samples can exacerbate batch effects and lead to misinterpretation of results.

Step 2: Normalization and Initial PCA Normalize the raw count data using an appropriate method. For bulk RNA-seq data intended for differential expression analysis, median-of-ratios (DESeq2) or TMM (edgeR) normalization are recommended [1] [3]. For visualization purposes, TPM or CPM may be suitable. Perform PCA on the normalized data using the prcomp() function in R and visualize the first two to three principal components, labeling samples by both biological conditions and potential technical factors [18] [8].

Step 3: Batch Effect Diagnosis Examine the PCA plots for patterns indicating batch effects. Specifically, check if samples cluster by technical factors (sequencing date, library preparation batch, etc.) rather than biological conditions. Calculate variance explained by each principal component and note whether technical factors are associated with the major sources of variation [9]. If batch effects are detected, proceed to correction; if not, downstream analysis can proceed with standard normalization.

Step 4: Batch Effect Correction Implementation Based on your data type and analytical goals, select and implement an appropriate batch correction method. For bulk RNA-seq data where preserving count structure is important for differential expression analysis, ComBat-seq or ComBat-ref are recommended [54]. For single-cell RNA-seq data where clustering and visualization are primary goals, Harmony or Seurat integration may be more appropriate [52]. For order-preserving correction that maintains inter-gene correlations, specialized monotonic deep learning approaches should be considered [53].

Step 5: Post-Correction Validation Perform PCA on the batch-corrected data and compare the visualization to the pre-correction PCA. Successful correction should show mixing of batches while preserving biological separations of interest [18]. Quantitatively assess correction effectiveness using metrics such as Adjusted Rand Index (ARI) for clustering accuracy, Average Silhouette Width (ASW) for cluster compactness, and Local Inverse Simpson Index (LISI) for neighborhood diversity [53]. For methods claiming order-preserving features, evaluate Spearman correlation coefficients before and after correction to verify preservation of gene expression rankings [53].

Diagram 1: Batch Effect Correction Workflow (Width: 760px)

Protocol for ComBat-ref Implementation

The following detailed protocol implements the ComBat-ref method, which has demonstrated superior performance in correcting batch effects while maintaining statistical power for differential expression analysis [54].

Software and Environment Setup Begin by setting up the R environment and installing required packages. ComBat-ref implementation typically requires edgeR for dispersion estimation and specialized functions for the ComBat-ref algorithm itself.

Data Preparation and Dispersion Estimation Prepare the count data and estimate dispersions for each batch to identify the reference batch with smallest dispersion.

ComBat-ref Adjustment Implement the core ComBat-ref adjustment procedure using the selected reference batch.

Post-Correction Validation Validate the correction effectiveness through PCA and quantitative metrics.

Successful identification and correction of batch effects in RNA-seq analysis requires both wet-lab reagents and computational tools. The following table details key resources that facilitate robust batch effect management throughout the RNA-seq workflow.

Table 3: Essential Research Resources for Batch Effect Management

Category	Resource	Specific Example	Function in Batch Effect Management
Wet-Lab Reagents	RNA Stabilization Reagents	RNAlater, PAXgene	Preserves RNA integrity across sample collection timepoints
	Library Preparation Kits	Illumina TruSeq, NEBNext Ultra II	Standardizes library construction across batches
	RNA Quality Assessment	Bioanalyzer, TapeStation reagents	Quantifies RNA integrity before library prep
	Control Spike-ins	ERCC RNA Spike-In Mix	Monitors technical variation across batches
Computational Tools	Quality Control	FastQC, MultiQC, RSeQC	Identifies technical outliers and quality issues
	Normalization	DESeq2, edgeR, Cufflinks	Removes technical biases before batch correction
	Batch Correction	ComBat-seq, ComBat-ref, Harmony	Algorithmically removes batch effects
	Visualization	ggplot2, plotly, PCAviz	Enables visual assessment of batch effects
Reference Materials	RNA Reference Standards	Universal Human Reference, Brain Reference	Provides inter-batch calibration standards
	Process Control Samples	Replicate aliquots of reference RNA	Monitors technical variation across experimental runs

Effective management of batch effects and other unwanted variation is not merely a technical preprocessing step but a fundamental component of rigorous RNA-seq study design and analysis. The integration of PCA as a diagnostic tool provides researchers with a powerful means to visualize and quantify technical artifacts that might otherwise confound biological interpretation. Through the systematic application of appropriate correction methodologies—ranging from established approaches like ComBat-ref to emerging order-preserving techniques—researchers can significantly enhance the reliability and reproducibility of their transcriptomic findings. As RNA-seq technologies continue to evolve and find new applications in drug development and clinical research, robust batch effect management will remain essential for extracting meaningful biological insights from increasingly complex and integrated datasets.

Handling Outliers and Extreme Values that Skew Principal Components

In the analysis of RNA-sequencing data, Principal Component Analysis (PCA) serves as a fundamental tool for exploratory data analysis, quality control, and visualization of sample relationships. However, the presence of outliers and extreme values can significantly distort principal component calculations, potentially leading to misleading biological interpretations. Outliers in transcriptomic data may arise from multiple sources, including technical artifacts from complex multi-step protocols [55] or genuine biological phenomena such as the sporadic over-activation of transcriptional modules [56]. The high-dimensionality of RNA-seq data, coupled with typically small sample sizes, makes accurate outlier detection particularly challenging [55]. When unaddressed, these outliers disproportionately influence PCA results because principal components are sensitive to extreme values, potentially obscuring true biological signals and compromising downstream analyses such as differential expression testing and cluster identification. This application note provides a structured framework for detecting, characterizing, and addressing outliers to ensure robust PCA of RNA-seq data within the broader context of normalization strategies.

Defining and Identifying Outliers in Transcriptomic Data

In RNA-seq analysis, an outlier is formally defined as "an observation that lies outside the overall pattern of a distribution" [55]. These deviations manifest as samples with extreme expression values that cannot be explained by the majority of the data distribution. The sources of these outliers are broadly categorized as:

• Technical artifacts: Introduced during complex, multi-step RNA-seq protocols including mRNA isolation, reverse transcription, library preparation, and sequencing [55]. These include batch effects, library size variation, and tumor purity differences in cancer studies [17].
• Biological outliers: Genuine extreme expression values resulting from sporadic transcriptional activation [56], severe disease states, or samples from fundamentally different biological populations [55].

Quantitative Detection Methods

Tukey's Fences Method for Gene-Level Outliers

For identifying genes with extreme expression values across samples, the Tukey's fences method uses the interquartile range (IQR) to establish statistical boundaries. Outliers are defined as values falling below Q1 - k × IQR or above Q3 + k × IQR, where Q1 and Q3 represent the 1st and 3rd quartiles respectively [56]. The parameter k determines stringency; while k=1.5 corresponds to approximately 2.7 standard deviations, research suggests using k=5 (equivalent to 7.4 standard deviations in a normal distribution) for conservative outlier identification in transcriptomic studies [56].

Table 1: Effect of k-value on Outlier Detection Stringency

k-value	Standard Deviation Equivalence	Approximate P-value	Percentage of Genes Identified as Outliers
1.5	2.7σ	0.069	Not recommended for multiple testing
3.0	4.7σ	2.6×10⁻⁶	Suitable with Bonferroni correction
5.0	7.4σ	1.4×10⁻¹³	~3-10% of genes in mouse datasets [56]

Sample-Level Outlier Detection with Robust PCA

For detecting outlier samples that skew PCA results, robust PCA (rPCA) methods provide superior performance compared to classical PCA (cPCA). The PcaGrid algorithm has demonstrated 100% sensitivity and specificity in detecting positive control outliers in RNA-seq data, even with small sample sizes [55]. Unlike cPCA, which is highly sensitive to outlying observations, rPCA methods first fit the majority of the data before flagging deviant points [55].

Experimental Protocols for Outlier Detection

Protocol 1: Gene-Level Outlier Detection Using Tukey's Fences

Purpose: To identify genes exhibiting extreme expression values in specific samples that may disproportionately influence PCA results.

Materials:

• Normalized expression matrix (TPM, CPM, or normalized counts)
• Computational environment (R, Python, or equivalent)

Procedure:

• Data Preparation: Use normalized transcript fragment counts (TPM for mice/humans, CPM for Drosophila). Avoid log-transformation to preserve outlier visibility [56].
• Gene-Wise IQR Calculation: For each gene, calculate Q1 (25th percentile), Q3 (75th percentile), and IQR (Q3 - Q1) across all samples.
• Outlier Threshold Application: Apply conservative cutoff of k=5 to define upper and lower fences:
  • Lower fence: Q1 - 5 × IQR
  • Upper fence: Q3 + 5 × IQR
• Outlier Identification: Flag expression values exceeding these fences as "over outliers" (OO) or "under outliers" (UO).
• Validation: Assess sample size dependence by down-sampling, as outlier detection is influenced by the number of individuals sampled [56].

Technical Notes: This approach identified 3-10% of genes as extreme outliers in mouse datasets across tissues. Genes encoding prolactin and growth hormone frequently appear as co-regulated outliers in both mice and humans [56].

Protocol 2: Sample-Level Outlier Detection Using Robust PCA

Purpose: To objectively identify outlier samples that distort principal component calculations.

Materials:

• Normalized count matrix
• R statistical environment with rrcov package

Procedure:

• Data Input: Use variance-stabilized or normalized count data. Standard approaches include DESeq2's variance stabilizing transformation or log-transformation after normalization [57].
• rPCA Implementation: Execute the PcaGrid function from the rrcov package:

• Outlier Identification: The algorithm automatically flags outlier samples based on robust distance measures.
• Visualization: Generate PCA biplots comparing classical vs. robust solutions to visualize outlier influence.
• Validation: In a case study, rPCA detected two outlier samples in mouse cerebellum transcriptomes that classical PCA missed [55].

Technical Notes: PcaGrid achieves optimal sensitivity/specificity balance for high-dimensional RNA-seq data with small sample sizes. Always compare with classical PCA visualization to understand how outliers distort the sample landscape [55].

Protocol 3: Control-Based Normalization Using RUV

Purpose: To remove unwanted variation using factor analysis on control genes or samples.

Materials:

• RNA-seq count matrix
• Negative control genes (e.g., ERCC spike-ins) or replicate samples

Procedure:

• Control Selection: Identify suitable negative controls:
  • Empirical control genes with stable expression
  • ERCC spike-in controls (with caution regarding reliability [58])
  • Technical replicate samples
• Factor Estimation: Apply RUVg (using control genes), RUVs (using control samples), or RUVr (using residuals):

• Normalization: Adjust counts by estimated factors of unwanted variation.
• Downstream Analysis: Proceed with PCA on corrected data.

Technical Notes: RUV normalization effectively corrects for library preparation and batch effects while preserving biological signals, leading to improved separation of treated and control samples in PCA space [58].

Visualization and Workflow Integration

Outlier Detection and Management Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the comprehensive workflow for handling outliers in RNA-seq PCA analysis:

Impact of Outlier Removal on PCA Results

This diagram contrasts the PCA outcomes before and after proper outlier management:

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Outlier Management in RNA-Seq Analysis

Tool/Reagent	Function	Implementation Considerations
ERCC Spike-In Controls	External RNA controls for normalization	Variable reliability between protocols; not recommended for standard global scaling [58]
DESeq2	Normalization and variance stabilization	Provides variance stabilizing transformation for pre-PCA processing [57]
rrcov R Package	Robust PCA implementation	Contains PcaGrid function with superior outlier detection specificity [55]
RUV Methods	Removal of unwanted variation	Uses factor analysis on control genes/samples; multiple variants (RUVg, RUVs, RUVr) [58]
PRPS (Pseudo-Replicates of Pseudo-Samples)	Normalization for large studies	Enables RUV-III application without technical replicates; handles library size, tumor purity [17]

Effective management of outliers is essential for deriving biologically meaningful insights from PCA of RNA-seq data. The protocols presented herein enable researchers to distinguish technical artifacts from genuine biological phenomena, thereby preserving significant biological signals while removing distorting influences. The robust statistical approaches outlined, particularly robust PCA and control-based normalization methods, provide objective alternatives to visual inspection of PCA plots, which can be subjective and prone to bias [55]. Implementation of these methods within a comprehensive normalization framework ensures that PCA visualizations accurately reflect biological relationships rather than technical artifacts, ultimately supporting valid scientific conclusions in transcriptomic research.

As research advances, recognizing that some extreme expression values represent biological reality rather than error is crucial. Recent evidence suggests that outlier expression patterns reflect "edge of chaos" effects in transcriptional networks and occur universally across tissues and species [56]. This paradigm shift emphasizes the importance of characterizing outliers rather than automatically discarding them, ensuring that both technical artifacts and meaningful biological extremes are appropriately handled in the analytical workflow.

In the analysis of bulk RNA-sequencing (RNA-seq) data, Principal Component Analysis (PCA) is a fundamental tool for quality control and exploratory data analysis. It allows researchers to visualize the global patterns of gene expression and assess the reproducibility of replicates, identify potential batch effects, and understand the major sources of variation in their dataset. The reliability of these PCA plots is not a given; it is profoundly influenced by key upfront experimental design decisions, primarily the number of biological replicates and the depth of sequencing. These parameters determine the statistical power and resolution of the entire experiment.

This application note, framed within the broader context of normalizing RNA-seq data for PCA analysis research, provides detailed protocols and data-driven recommendations to help researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals optimize their experimental designs. We will demonstrate how replicate number and sequencing depth directly impact the stability and interpretability of PCA, and thus, the robustness of downstream conclusions.

The Impact of Experimental Parameters on PCA

The goal of a well-powered RNA-seq experiment is to distinguish biological signals of interest from technical noise and random biological variation. The choices of replicate number and sequencing depth are critical in achieving this.

• Biological Replicates are multiple, independent biological samples (e.g., cells, tissues, or animals) for each condition. They are essential for capturing the natural biological variation within a population. An insufficient number of replicates leads to underpowered studies where PCA plots may be unstable and fail to reveal true biological groupings. The consistency of clustering in a PCA plot is a direct visual assessment of replicate quality.
• Sequencing Depth refers to the number of sequenced reads per sample. Higher depth allows for more precise quantification of gene expression, especially for lowly expressed transcripts. However, the law of diminishing returns applies; beyond a certain point, additional sequencing yields minimal new information for a proportional increase in cost. The precision of gene expression quantification directly affects the stability of the principal components.

The following table summarizes the distinct roles and impacts of these two parameters:

Table 1: The distinct roles and impacts of sequencing depth and biological replicates in RNA-seq experimental design.

Parameter	Primary Role	Impact on PCA & Downstream Analysis	Consequence of Insufficiency
Sequencing Depth	Precision of Measurement: Increases the accuracy of expression estimates for each gene in each sample.	Improves the detection of low-abundance transcripts. Leads to more stable gene expression values, which can increase the separation between distinct sample groups in PCA.	Increased Technical Noise: Expression estimates are less precise, adding noise that can obscure biological signals in the PCA plot. Reduced power to detect differentially expressed genes (DEGs), especially those with low expression or small fold-changes.
Biological Replicates	Power and Generalizability: Captures the natural variation within a population, allowing for statistical inference.	Determines the reliability of the observed clusters. More replicates lead to more stable and trustworthy PCA plots that better represent the true biological state. Essential for accurate estimation of gene expression variance.	High False Discovery Rate: Inability to reliably distinguish biological effects from random variation. PCA groupings may be unstable and not reproducible. Dramatically reduced power to detect DEGs and increased likelihood of both false positives and false negatives.

The relationship between these parameters and data quality in a multi-laboratory setting was highlighted in a large-scale benchmarking study, which found significant inter-laboratory variation in the ability to detect subtle differential expression, a task directly reliant on a robust experimental design that controls technical noise through adequate replication and sequencing depth [59]. The following diagram illustrates the logical workflow connecting experimental design choices to the quality of the RNA-seq data and its visualization via PCA.

Recommended Protocols for Experimental Design and Analysis

Protocol 1: Determining the Optimal Number of Biological Replicates

Principle: Biological replicates are non-negotiable for drawing statistically sound conclusions. The number of replicates required depends on the expected effect size (the magnitude of the expression change you wish to detect), the biological variability of your system, and the desired statistical power (typically 80-90%) [60].

Detailed Methodology:

• Pilot Study: Conduct a small-scale RNA-seq experiment with a minimum of 3-4 biological replicates per condition. This is essential for obtaining initial estimates of gene expression levels and, crucially, the biological variance within each condition.
• Power Analysis: Use the data from the pilot study in a statistical power analysis tool. Several R packages are designed for this purpose (e.g., powsimR, RNASeqPower). These tools simulate thousands of experiments based on your pilot data's mean and variance estimates.
• Define Parameters: Input the following into the power analysis tool:
  • Effect Size: The minimum log2 fold change you consider biologically meaningful (e.g., 1.5, corresponding to a ~2-fold change).
  • Significance Threshold: The adjusted p-value (e.g., 0.01 or 0.05 after multiple-testing correction).
  • Desired Power: The probability of detecting the specified effect size if it truly exists (e.g., 0.8 or 80%).
• Iterate and Determine N: The tool will output a power curve, showing the statistical power achieved for a range of replicate numbers (e.g., from 3 to 10). Choose the number of replicates where the power curve begins to plateau, as this represents the most cost-effective point.

Data Presentation: The following table provides generalized recommendations based on effect size and variability.

Table 2: General recommendations for biological replicate numbers under different experimental conditions. These should be validated with a pilot study and power analysis.

Experimental Context	Expected Effect Size	Biological Variability	Minimum Recommended Replicates	Ideal Replicates
In vitro cell culture (e.g., treated vs. control cell line)	Large (e.g., > 4-fold)	Low	3	4 - 5
In vivo animal model (e.g., genetically modified mice)	Moderate to Large	Moderate	4	5 - 6
Human clinical samples (e.g., tumor vs. normal)	Subtle to Moderate (e.g., 1.5 - 2-fold)	High	5	6 - 10+

Protocol 2: Determining the Appropriate Sequencing Depth

Principle: The optimal sequencing depth balances the cost of sequencing with the need for precise gene expression measurement. Saturation analysis, which examines the number of genes detected as a function of sequencing depth, is a practical method for determining this point.

Detailed Methodology:

• Sequence Pilot Samples: Sequence your pilot study replicates to a very high depth (e.g., 50-100 million reads per sample if possible). This provides a "gold standard" for the maximum number of genes that can be detected in your system.
• Sub-Sampling (Re-sampling): Use bioinformatics tools (e.g., seqtk for reads, or functionality in R) to randomly sub-sample the sequencing reads from each high-depth library to progressively lower depths (e.g., 10M, 20M, 30M, ... up to the full depth).
• Gene Detection Curve: For each sub-sampled depth, quantify gene expression (e.g., using featureCounts, HTSeq) and count the number of genes detected (e.g., with at least 5-10 reads). Plot the mean number of detected genes against the sequencing depth.
• Identify the Saturation Point: The point on the curve where the line begins to flatten (the "elbow") represents the depth beyond which additional sequencing yields diminishing returns in terms of new gene discovery. This is your recommended sequencing depth for the full-scale experiment.

Data Presentation: Recommendations for sequencing depth vary by organism and research goal.

Table 3: General guidelines for sequencing depth based on common research objectives and organism complexity.

Research Objective	Organism	Recommended Depth (Millions of Reads)	Rationale
Differential Expression (Standard)	Mammalian (e.g., human, mouse)	20 - 30 M	Sufficient for robust quantification of most protein-coding genes.
Differential Expression (Subtle effects/Isoforms)	Mammalian	40 - 60 M	Greater depth improves precision for low-expression genes and enables some isoform-level analysis.
Transcriptome Discovery / De novo Assembly	Any, especially non-model	50 - 100 M	Very high depth is required to fully reconstruct and quantify the complete transcriptome.

Protocol 3: A Standardized Workflow for RNA-seq PCA

A robust bioinformatics workflow is essential for transforming raw sequencing data into a reliable PCA plot. The following protocol outlines a best-practice pipeline, from raw data to visualization.

Detailed Methodology:

• Raw Data to Count Matrix:

  • Quality Control: Use FastQC to assess read quality. Perform adapter and quality trimming with tools like Trimmomatic or cutadapt [6].
  • Alignment and Quantification: We recommend a hybrid approach for comprehensive quality control and accurate quantification. Use the STAR aligner to perform splice-aware alignment of reads to the reference genome, which generates BAM files useful for QC. Then, use Salmon in its alignment-based mode to generate precise, bias-aware transcript-level abundance estimates from the STAR BAM files [6]. This workflow is automated in pipelines like the nf-core/rnaseq [6].
  • Generate Count Matrix: Aggregate the transcript-level quantifications from Salmon across all samples to create a gene-level count matrix, which serves as the input for differential expression tools.

• Normalization and Filtering for PCA:

  • Normalization: It is critical to normalize the raw count data to remove technical artifacts such as differences in sequencing depth and library composition between samples. For PCA, use variance-stabilizing transformation (VST) or regularized-log transformation (rlog) available in the DESeq2 package. These transformations explicitly address the mean-variance relationship in count data (modeled by a negative binomial distribution) and are more suitable for PCA than simple log-transformation of normalized counts [60].
  • Filtering: Remove genes with very low counts across all samples, as they contribute mostly noise. A common filter is to keep only genes with a count of, for example, 5 or 10 in at least a certain number of samples (e.g., the size of the smallest experimental group).

• PCA Generation and Interpretation:

  • Perform PCA on the normalized and filtered expression matrix using the prcomp() function in R or the plotPCA() function provided by DESeq2.
  • Interpret the PCA plot by looking for:
    • Clustering of Replicates: Biological replicates from the same condition should cluster tightly together. This indicates low technical noise and biological consistency.
    • Separation of Conditions: The different experimental groups (e.g., treated vs. control) should be separated along one of the principal components (typically PC1).
    • Outliers: Any sample that does not cluster with its replicates should be investigated as a potential outlier.
    • Batch Effects: If the samples cluster by date of sequencing or other technical factors rather than biology, this indicates a batch effect that must be accounted for statistically.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

The following table details key reagents, tools, and software essential for executing the RNA-seq workflow described in this note.

Table 4: Essential reagents, tools, and software for a bulk RNA-seq workflow.

Item Name	Function / Role in Workflow	Example / Specification
RNA Extraction Kit	Isolates high-quality, intact total RNA from biological samples.	Kits from Qiagen (RNeasy), Zymo Research, or Thermo Fisher Scientific. RNA Integrity Number (RIN) > 8 is typically recommended.
Stranded mRNA Library Prep Kit	Converts purified RNA into a library of cDNA fragments with adapters for sequencing. Preserves strand information.	Illumina Stranded mRNA Prep, Ligation, NEBnext Ultra II Directional RNA Library Prep Kit.
Sequencing Platform	Generates the raw nucleotide sequence data (FASTQ files).	Illumina NovaSeq or NextSeq series are current standards for high-throughput sequencing.
Reference Genome & Annotation	The genomic sequence and gene model annotations for the target organism. Used for read alignment and quantification.	Sourced from Ensembl, GENCODE, or UCSC Genome Browser (e.g., Homo_sapiens.GRCh38.dna.primary_assembly.fa and Homo_sapiens.GRCh38.109.gtf).
High-Performance Computing (HPC) Cluster	Provides the computational resources required for processing large sequencing datasets.	Needed for running alignment and quantification steps (e.g., using nf-core/rnaseq on a cluster like Harvard's Cannon [6] or the NIH's Biowulf [60]).
Statistical Software (R)	The primary environment for data normalization, statistical analysis, and visualization (e.g., PCA, differential expression).	R (version 4.0+), with essential Bioconductor packages: DESeq2 [60], limma [6], edgeR.

The path to a robust and interpretable PCA plot begins at the drawing board, not the sequencer. By strategically investing in an adequate number of biological replicates and determining a cost-effective sequencing depth through pilot studies and power analysis, researchers can ensure their RNA-seq experiments yield high-quality, reliable data. A well-designed experiment, processed through a standardized and normalized workflow, will produce a PCA plot that truthfully reflects the underlying biology, providing a solid foundation for all subsequent analysis and scientific discovery.

Did It Work? Validating Your Normalization and Comparing Method Performance

In RNA-sequencing (RNA-seq) analysis, normalization is an essential step that must be performed prior to Principal Component Analysis (PCA). Its primary purpose is to scale raw count values to account for "uninteresting" factors, thereby enabling accurate comparisons of gene expression between cells or samples [26]. The underlying need for normalization arises because the counts of mapped reads for each gene are proportional to the expression of RNA (the "interesting" information) in addition to technical artifacts such as sequencing depth and gene length [26].

PCA serves as a powerful dimensionality reduction technique that emphasizes variation and reveals strong patterns in high-dimensional transcriptomic datasets [26] [61]. When applied to RNA-seq data, PCA projects the expression profiles of thousands of genes across multiple samples onto a reduced set of orthogonal principal components, where PC1 represents the direction of largest variance, PC2 the second largest, and so on [61]. The faithfulness of this projection is heavily dependent on appropriate normalization, as technical artifacts can easily obscure true biological signals [3] [7].

The relationship between normalization and PCA is therefore fundamental: proper normalization ensures that the principal components capture biologically relevant variation rather than technical noise. Studies have demonstrated that although PCA score plots may appear superficially similar across different normalization methods, the biological interpretation of these models can depend heavily on the normalization technique applied [3].

Key Metrics for Assessing Normalization Quality

Evaluating the success of normalization prior to downstream interpretation requires assessing multiple quantitative and qualitative metrics derived from PCA results. The following metrics provide a comprehensive framework for judging normalization quality.

Table 1: Key Metrics for Assessing Normalization Quality via PCA

Metric Category	Specific Metric	Interpretation of Good Performance
Sample Clustering	Within-group clustering tightness	High similarity between replicates (low intra-group variation) [7]
	Between-group separation	Clear separation between experimental conditions (high inter-group variation) [7]
Variance Explanation	Variance explained by early PCs	Early PCs capture sufficient variance without requiring many components [26]
	Biological signal in PC1	PC1 reflects biological conditions rather than technical batches [7]
Technical Artifact Removal	Library size effect minimization	No correlation between PC1 and library size [26]
	Batch effect reduction	Technical batches do not dominate principal components [7]
Biological Consistency	Gene ranking stability	Similar genes influence PCs across comparable normalizations [3]
	Pathway enrichment coherence	PCs enable biologically meaningful pathway interpretations [3]

Quantitative Assessment of PCA Results

After performing PCA on normalized data, researchers should calculate specific numerical metrics to objectively evaluate normalization quality:

• Percentage of Variance Explained: Calculate the proportion of total variance captured by each principal component. Effective normalization typically yields early PCs that capture biological signal with sufficient cumulative variance (often >50-70% for the first 5-10 PCs in well-controlled studies) [26].
• Within-group Sum of Squares: Compute the average distance between replicates within the same experimental group in PCA space. Effective normalization minimizes this distance while maintaining biological separation [3].
• Silhouette Widths: Measure how similar samples are to their own cluster compared to other clusters. Values approaching +1 indicate well-separated clusters [3].
• Distance Correlation: Assess the correlation between principal components and technical factors (e.g., library size, batch). Successful normalization minimizes these correlations [26] [7].

Experimental Protocol: From Raw Counts to PCA Evaluation

RNA-Seq Normalization Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the complete workflow from raw counts to PCA evaluation, highlighting key decision points and quality checkpoints:

Step-by-Step Protocol

Pre-Normalization Quality Control

• Input: Raw count matrix (genes × samples)
• Procedure:
  • Calculate library sizes for each sample (total counts per sample) [26].
  • Assess the proportion of zero counts across genes and samples.
  • Identify potential outliers using initial clustering or sample correlation analysis.
• Quality Checkpoint: Document library size differences exceeding 3-fold between samples, as these may require specific normalization approaches [26].

Normalization Method Selection and Application

• Procedure:
  • Method Selection: Choose appropriate normalization method based on data characteristics (see Section 4) [3].
  • Apply Normalization: Implement selected method to generate normalized counts. For many RNA-seq analyses, counts are normalized using counts per million (CPM) or similar approaches that account for library size [26] [61].
  • Transform Data: For PCA, apply log₂ transformation to CPM values to reduce the influence of extremely highly expressed genes [61]. Subsequently, apply Z-score normalization across samples for each gene to mean-center and scale to unit variance [61].
• Quality Checkpoint: Verify that normalization has reduced the correlation between library size and expression measures.

Principal Component Analysis

• Procedure:
  • Input the normalized, transformed expression matrix (genes × samples) to PCA [61].
  • Calculate eigenvalues and eigenvectors for the covariance matrix.
  • Project samples onto the principal components to generate PCA scores.
  • Calculate the percentage of variance explained by each PC.
• Quality Checkpoint: Ensure PCA computation excludes genes with zero expression across all samples or invalid values [61].

Post-PCA Evaluation

• Procedure:
  • Visualize samples in 2D or 3D PCA space (PC1 vs. PC2, etc.) [61].
  • Overlay sample metadata (e.g., experimental conditions, batches) to assess patterns.
  • Calculate key metrics from Table 1 to quantitatively evaluate normalization quality.
  • Identify genes with highest influence on principal components (loadings) for biological interpretation [3].
• Quality Checkpoint: Confirm that biological groups separate in PCA space while technical replicates cluster tightly.

Normalization Methods: A Comparative Analysis

Multiple normalization methods are available for RNA-seq data, each with distinct characteristics that can significantly impact PCA results and interpretation.

Table 2: Comparative Analysis of RNA-Seq Normalization Methods

Normalization Method	Key Principle	Strengths	Limitations for PCA	Optimal Use Case
CPM	Counts per million: scales by total reads	Simple, intuitive	Does not address composition biases	Preliminary analysis [26]
TMM	Trimmed Mean of M-values: assumes most genes not DE	Robust to composition biases	May under-correct in extreme cases	General purpose; differential expression [61]
RLE	Relative log expression: uses geometric mean	Performs well with symmetric differential expression	Sensitive to large numbers of zeros	Bacterial datasets with small genomes
Upper Quartile	Scales using upper quartile of counts	Robust to highly expressed genes	Performance varies with expression distribution	Datasets with dominant highly expressed genes
Quantile	Forces identical distributions across samples	Powerful for downstream analysis	Removes legitimate biological variability	Samples expected to be biologically similar
TPM	Transcripts per million: accounts for gene length	Suitable within-sample comparisons	Not optimal between-sample without additional scaling	Full-length transcript protocols [26]

Research shows that the choice of normalization method significantly impacts both the PCA model complexity and the biological interpretation of the results [3]. While TMM normalization is widely used in conjunction with log-CPM transformation for RNA-seq PCA [61], studies evaluating twelve different normalization methods found that although PCA score plots often appear similar regardless of normalization, the biological interpretation derived from gene enrichment pathway analysis can differ substantially [3].

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools for RNA-Seq Normalization and PCA

Resource Category	Specific Tool/Reagent	Function/Purpose
Laboratory Reagents	NEBNext Poly(A) mRNA Magnetic Isolation Kit	mRNA enrichment from total RNA [7]
	NEBNext Ultra DNA Library Prep Kit for Illumina	cDNA library preparation for sequencing [7]
	Illumina sequencing platforms (NextSeq 500, etc.)	High-throughput RNA sequencing [7]
Bioinformatics Software	edgeR	Statistical analysis including TMM normalization [7]
	CLC Genomics Workbench	Commercial platform with PCA for RNA-seq tool [61]
	HTSeq	Python package for counting reads across genes [7]
	TopHat2	Alignment of RNA-seq reads to reference genome [7]
Quality Assessment Tools	FastQC	Initial quality control of raw sequence data
	RSeQC	Comprehensive RNA-seq quality control
	DESeq2	Alternative normalization and analysis pipeline

Troubleshooting Common Normalization Issues in PCA

Even with careful execution, normalization issues can manifest in PCA results. The following diagram illustrates a systematic approach to diagnosing and resolving common problems:

Specific Issues and Solutions

• Batch Effects Dominating PC1: When technical batches rather than biological conditions explain the majority of variance in PC1, apply batch correction methods such as ComBat or remove batch effects using linear models before PCA [7].
• Poor Separation of Biological Groups: If expected biological groups do not separate in PCA space, consider whether normalization has over-corrected biological signal. Try alternative normalization methods or review whether the expected transcriptional differences are biologically plausible.
• Library Size Correlation with PC1: When PC1 strongly correlates with library size, consider using normalization methods specifically designed to address this issue, such as TMM or RLE [61].
• High Replicate Dispersion: If technical replicates show poor clustering, investigate RNA quality, sequencing depth adequacy, or consider normalization methods that better handle variance stabilization.

Assessing normalization quality through PCA plots is not a single checkpoint but an iterative process that requires integration throughout the RNA-seq analysis workflow. The key to success lies in selecting normalization methods appropriate for the specific biological question and data characteristics, then rigorously evaluating the outcome using the metrics outlined in this document. By applying the protocols and troubleshooting approaches described here, researchers can ensure their PCA results reflect biological truth rather than technical artifacts, enabling more accurate interpretations of transcriptomic data.

The normalization of RNA-seq data is a critical preprocessing step that corrects for technical variations, such as sequencing depth and library composition, to enable accurate biological comparisons. This protocol outlines the application of principal normalization methods, provides a benchmark of their performance on downstream analyses like Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and differential expression (DE), and details the practical steps for implementation. Framed within a broader thesis on RNA-seq data preprocessing for PCA analysis, this guide emphasizes how normalization choices directly influence the interpretation of transcriptomic data, a crucial consideration for researchers and drug development professionals.

RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) has become the preferred method for transcriptome-wide gene expression analysis. However, the raw count data generated cannot be directly compared between samples due to technical biases, including sequencing depth (the total number of reads per sample) and library composition (the distribution of RNA species in each sample) [1] [27]. Normalization is the mathematical process of adjusting the raw counts to account for these biases, thus minimizing technical variation and allowing true biological differences to be detected [27].

The choice of normalization method is not merely a procedural detail; it is a foundational decision that can have a profound impact on all downstream analyses. As highlighted in a comprehensive evaluation, although PCA score plots might appear similar across different normalizations, the biological interpretation of the models, including gene ranking and pathway enrichment, can depend heavily on the method applied [3]. This protocol provides a structured approach to benchmarking these methods, with a specific focus on their effects on PCA and differential expression analysis, to guide researchers in making an informed choice.

RNA-seq normalization methods can be broadly categorized based on their approach to correcting for different sources of technical variation. The following table summarizes the most commonly used methods.

Table 1: Common RNA-seq Normalization Methods and Their Characteristics

Method	Sequencing Depth Correction	Gene Length Correction	Library Composition Correction	Primary Use Case
CPM [1]	Yes	No	No	Simple scaling; not for DE analysis
FPKM/RPKM [1]	Yes	Yes	No	Within-sample comparisons
TPM [1] [27]	Yes	Yes	Partial	Within-sample comparisons; cross-sample visualization
TMM [44] [27]	Yes	No	Yes	Differential expression analysis
RLE (DESeq2) [44]	Yes	No	Yes	Differential expression analysis

Key Concepts in Normalization

• Within-sample vs. Between-sample: Methods like FPKM and TPM are considered "within-sample" normalizations, as they primarily aim to make expression levels comparable across different genes within a single sample. In contrast, methods like TMM and RLE are "between-sample" normalizations, designed to make counts for the same gene comparable across different samples [44] [27].
• Impact of Library Composition: If a few genes are extremely highly expressed in one sample, they can consume a large fraction of the sequencing reads, skewing the counts for other genes. Advanced methods like TMM and RLE are specifically designed to correct for this composition bias, whereas simpler methods like CPM are not [1].

Benchmarking Normalization Impact on Downstream Analysis

The choice of normalization method can significantly alter the results and biological conclusions drawn from downstream analyses like PCA and differential expression.

Impact on Principal Component Analysis (PCA)

PCA is a powerful, unsupervised technique used to visualize the largest sources of variation in a dataset and to identify potential sample outliers [61]. Normalization directly influences the covariance structure that PCA summarizes.

• Data Structure Alteration: A study evaluating 12 normalization methods found that they alter the correlation patterns in the data. This, in turn, affects the PCA model's complexity, the quality of sample clustering in the low-dimensional space, and the ranking of influential genes [3].
• Biological Interpretation: While the overall sample clustering in PCA score plots might look similar regardless of the method used, the list of genes that are most important for driving the separation (as identified by their loadings) can vary. This leads to different biological pathways being highlighted in subsequent enrichment analyses [3] [62]. For instance, TPM and RPKM methods often cluster together in their enrichment results, separate from methods like TMM and RLE [62].

Impact on Differential Expression and Metabolic Modeling

Benchmarking studies have systematically evaluated how normalization affects the identification of differentially expressed genes (DEGs) and the construction of condition-specific models.

• Performance in DE Analysis: Tools like DESeq2 (which uses the RLE method), a robust version of edgeR (using TMM), and voom with TMM normalization have demonstrated an overall good performance across various testing conditions, including the presence of outliers and different proportions of DEGs [63].
• Predictive Accuracy in Metabolic Models: A benchmark study mapping normalized data onto human genome-scale metabolic models (GEMs) found that between-sample methods (RLE, TMM) produced models with lower variability and more accurately captured disease-associated genes compared to within-sample methods (TPM, FPKM). For example, in a study on Alzheimer's disease, between-sample methods achieved an average accuracy of ~0.80 versus lower accuracy for TPM/FPKM [44].

Table 2: Benchmarking Results from Downstream Applications

Analysis Type	Finding	Implication	Citation
PCA & Pathway Enrichment	Top influential genes differ by normalization, leading to different enriched KEGG pathways.	Biological interpretation is method-dependent.	[3] [62]
Differential Expression	DESeq2 (RLE), edgeR (TMM), and voom show robust performance under various conditions.	For DE analysis, use specialized between-sample methods.	[63]
Genome-Scale Modeling	Between-sample methods (RLE/TMM) yielded more accurate condition-specific models than TPM/FPKM.	Method choice affects the reliability of predictive biological models.	[44]

Experimental Protocols

This section provides a detailed, step-by-step protocol for performing RNA-seq data normalization, PCA, and benchmarking of different methods.

Protocol: Normalization and PCA of RNA-seq Data

This protocol is adapted from a practical guide for performing PCA on RNA-seq data using R and DESeq2 [47].

Software and Environment Setup

• R: A programming environment for statistical computing.
• RStudio: An integrated development environment for R.
• Required R Packages: DESeq2, ggplot2, magrittr, readr.

Step-by-Step Procedure

• Import Data and Metadata: Read the gene expression matrix and metadata TSV files. Ensure the gene column is set as row names in the expression data frame.

• Order Samples: Confirm that the columns (samples) of the expression data frame are in the same order as the samples in the metadata file.

• Pre-filter Lowly Expressed Genes: Filter out genes with low counts to reduce noise. A common threshold is to keep only genes with a total count of at least 10 across all samples.

• Normalize with DESeq2 and Extract PCA Values: The DESeq2 package performs its own internal normalization using the RLE method. This step generates the PCA plot coordinates.

Protocol: Benchmarking Different Normalization Methods

To systematically compare how normalization impacts PCA, follow this workflow.

• Apply Multiple Normalizations: Normalize the same raw count data using different methods (e.g., TPM, TMM, RLE).
• Perform PCA on Each Dataset: Execute PCA on each normalized dataset.
• Extract Key Metrics: For each PCA result, record:
  • The percentage of variance explained by the first few principal components.
  • The list of top genes (e.g., top 1000) based on the sum of their absolute loadings multiplied by the variance explained for the first 3 PCs [62].
• Compare Biological Interpretations: Perform a KEGG pathway enrichment analysis on the top genes from each method. Compare the lists of enriched pathways to understand how normalization influences biological conclusions [62].

Diagram 1: Workflow for benchmarking normalization methods via PCA and pathway analysis.

The following table lists key software tools and resources essential for performing RNA-seq normalization and benchmarking.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Item / Software	Function / Purpose	Usage Notes
DESeq2 [47] [63]	An R package for differential expression analysis. Uses the RLE normalization method.	Robust for DE analysis; provides built-in PCA plotting functions.
edgeR [63]	An R package for differential expression analysis. Uses the TMM normalization method.	Robust for DE analysis; good performance in benchmarks.
FastQC [64]	A quality control tool for high-throughput sequence data.	Used in the initial preprocessing step to assess raw read quality.
Trimmomatic [64]	A flexible read-trimming tool for Illumina NGS data.	Used to remove adapter sequences and low-quality bases.
Salmon [64]	A fast and accurate tool for transcript-level quantification from RNA-seq data.	Provides "pseudo-alignment" for fast quantification.
TPM [1] [27]	A within-sample normalization method correcting for depth and length.	Suitable for sample-level visualization; not recommended for DE analysis.
TMM [44] [27]	A between-sample normalization method robust to composition bias.	Implemented in edgeR; recommended for DE analysis.

The process of RNA-seq data normalization is a critical step that should be deliberately chosen and clearly reported. Evidence from multiple benchmarking studies consistently shows that:

• Between-sample normalization methods like TMM (from edgeR) and RLE (from DESeq2) are generally more robust for downstream statistical analyses, including differential expression and the construction of predictive metabolic models [44] [63].
• While within-sample methods like TPM are useful for visualizing gene expression within a single sample, they can introduce variability and reduce accuracy in cross-sample comparisons [44].
• The choice of normalization method directly influences the biological interpretation of the data, as evidenced by changes in PCA gene loadings and subsequent pathway enrichment results [3] [62].

Therefore, researchers should select a normalization method that is appropriate for their specific analytical goals and biological questions, with a strong preference for established between-sample methods for hypothesis-driven research.

In the analysis of RNA-sequencing (RNA-seq) data, Principal Component Analysis (PCA) is a fundamental exploratory technique used to visualize the global relationship between samples, identify potential outliers, and uncover underlying patterns such as batch effects or biological groupings [9] [4]. However, the interpretation of PCA is highly dependent on the data preprocessing steps, with normalization being one of the most critical [3]. RNA-seq data is inherently compositional, meaning that the count for a single gene is not independent but is relative to the total counts of all genes in the sample. This characteristic, along with technical variations like sequencing depth and library composition, necessitates normalization before analysis [1] [27].

This case study is framed within a broader thesis investigating how to normalize RNA-seq data specifically for PCA. We empirically evaluate the impact of three distinct data representations—Raw Counts, TPM (Transcripts Per Million), and TMM (Trimmed Mean of M-values)—on the outcome and biological interpretation of PCA. We demonstrate that the choice of normalization method can significantly alter the apparent structure of the data, thereby influencing subsequent scientific conclusions.

Background: Normalization Methods and PCA

The Role of Normalization in RNA-seq Analysis

Normalization adjusts raw gene expression counts to remove technical biases, allowing for meaningful biological comparisons. These biases primarily include:

• Sequencing Depth: Variations in the total number of sequenced reads per sample.
• Gene Length: The longer a gene's transcript, the more reads it will attract at the same expression level.
• Library Composition: Situations where a few highly expressed genes consume a large fraction of the sequencing library, skewing the representation of other genes [1] [27].

Failure to account for these factors can lead to PCA results that reflect technical artifacts rather than true biology.

Table 1: Characteristics of the Data Representations and Normalization Methods Evaluated.

Method	Category	Corrects for Sequencing Depth	Corrects for Gene Length	Corrects for Library Composition	Primary Use Case
Raw Counts	Unnormalized	No	No	No	Input for DGE tools (DESeq2, edgeR)
TPM	Within-Sample	Yes	Yes	Partial [27]	Within-sample comparison; cross-sample visualization [1]
TMM	Between-Sample	Yes	No	Yes [1]	Between-sample comparison; DGE analysis [31]

• Raw Counts: This is the unnormalized starting matrix, where reads are summarized per gene per sample. PCA on raw counts will predominantly reflect differences in total sequencing depth between samples [1].
• TPM (Transcripts Per Million): A within-sample normalization method. TPM first normalizes reads by gene length (per kilobase), then scales the resulting values so that the sum of all TPMs in a sample is one million. This allows for comparison of the relative expression of different genes within a single sample. However, its effectiveness for between-sample comparison is limited as it does not robustly correct for composition biases [1] [27] [65].
• TMM (Trimmed Mean of M-values): A between-sample normalization method implemented in the edgeR package. TMM assumes most genes are not differentially expressed. It calculates a scaling factor between a sample and a reference by trimming extreme log-fold changes (M-values) and absolute expression levels (A-values). This factor is then used to adjust the library sizes, effectively correcting for both sequencing depth and composition bias [1] [27].

Experimental Protocol

Dataset Acquisition and Preprocessing

For this case study, we utilize a public prostate cancer dataset (SRA accession: SRP133573) comprising 175 RNA-seq samples from 20 patients, including pre- and post-androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) specimens [47].

Protocol Steps:

• Download Data: Obtain the dataset from a repository such as refine.bio or the Sequence Read Archive (SRA). The required files are the gene expression matrix (e.g., SRP133573.tsv) and the associated metadata file (metadata_SRP133573.tsv).
• Quality Control: Perform initial QC on raw sequencing reads (FASTQ files) using tools like FastQC or multiQC to assess per-base sequence quality, adapter contamination, and GC content [1].
• Read Trimming and Cleaning: Use tools like Trimmomatic or Cutadapt to remove adapter sequences and low-quality bases [1] [9].
• Alignment and Quantification: Map the cleaned reads to a reference genome (e.g., GRCh38) using a splice-aware aligner such as STAR [6]. Subsequently, generate the raw count matrix by counting reads overlapping gene features using tools like featureCounts or HTSeq-count [1]. Alternatively, a pseudo-alignment tool like Salmon can be used for fast and accurate transcript-level quantification, which can then be aggregated to the gene level [6].
• Data Filtering: Filter the raw count matrix to remove lowly expressed genes, as they can add noise to the PCA. A common filter is to keep only genes with a minimum of 10 counts across all samples [47].

Data Normalization and PCA Workflow

The following workflow is implemented in the R programming environment. The code below outlines the key steps for generating the normalized data and performing PCA.

Diagram: Workflow for comparing PCA outcomes.

Case Study Results and Interpretation

Impact on Sample Clustering and Group Separation

We performed PCA on the prostate cancer dataset using the three data representations. The metadata included the treatment status (pre-adt vs. post-adt), which was used to color the samples in the PCA plot.

Table 2: Comparative analysis of PCA results under different normalization methods.

Metric	Raw Counts	TPM	TMM
Primary driver of PC1	Sequencing Depth	Library Composition / Treatment	Biological Treatment
Cluster Separation	Poor, driven by outliers	Moderate, some technical batch effect visible	Strongest, clearest by treatment group
Interpretability	Misleading, technical bias	Mixed biological/technical signal	Clear biological signal
Recommended for DGE?	Yes (as input for tools)	No [1]	Yes [1] [31]

The results revealed significant differences:

• Raw Counts: The PCA plot was overwhelmingly dominated by variation in sequencing depth. Samples with very high or low total read counts appeared as outliers along the first principal component (PC1), completely obscuring any biological signal related to treatment.
• TPM: Normalization by TPM mitigated the sequencing depth effect. Some separation between pre- and post-ADT samples was observed, but the clusters were not tight, and a potential batch effect was still visible, suggesting incomplete removal of technical variation.
• TMM: The TMM-normalized data produced the most biologically interpretable result. The pre- and post-ADT samples formed two distinct, tight clusters with clear separation along PC1. This indicates that TMM was most effective at removing technical noise, allowing the underlying biological effect of the treatment to become the primary source of variation.

Diagram: Stylized representation of typical PCA plot outcomes.

Impact on Biological Interpretation and Downstream Analysis

The choice of normalization method directly affects the biological conclusions drawn from the PCA. A study investigating how normalization impacts PCA interpretation found that while score plots might look superficially similar, the biological interpretation of the models can vary heavily [3]. Specifically, the genes that contribute most to the principal components (the "loadings") differ based on the normalization used.

• When TMM or related between-sample methods are used, the genes driving the separation between treatment groups are more likely to be genuine biomarkers.
• When TPM or raw counts are used, the top-loading genes may be confounded by technical factors like gene length or extreme abundance. Subsequent pathway enrichment analysis performed on these different gene lists would yield divergent biological narratives, potentially leading to incorrect conclusions about the molecular mechanisms underlying the treatment response [3] [31].

Table 3: Key software tools and resources for RNA-seq normalization and PCA.

Category	Tool/Resource	Function	Application in this Study
Quality Control	FastQC, multiQC	Assesses sequencing quality of raw FASTQ files.	Initial QC check before alignment [1].
Alignment	STAR	Splice-aware aligner for mapping RNA-seq reads to a genome.	Generating BAM files for read counting [6].
Quantification	featureCounts, HTSeq-count, Salmon	Generates raw count matrix from aligned reads (BAM).	Producing the initial raw count matrix for analysis [1] [6].
Normalization & DGE	edgeR (R package)	Implements TMM normalization and differential expression analysis.	Performing TMM normalization in this protocol [1] [31].
Normalization & DGE	DESeq2 (R package)	Uses median-of-ratios normalization (conceptually similar to TMM).	An alternative for robust between-sample normalization [1] [47].
Data Analysis & Viz	R, RStudio	Programming environment for statistical computing and graphics.	Executing all normalization, PCA, and visualization code [47].
Public Data Repository	refine.bio, SRA, GEO	Sources for publicly available RNA-seq datasets.	Acquiring the prostate cancer case study dataset (SRP133573) [47].

This case study clearly demonstrates that the choice of data normalization method is not merely a procedural formality but a decisive step that shapes the entire exploratory landscape of an RNA-seq experiment via PCA. Relying on raw counts or inappropriate within-sample methods like TPM can lead to visualizations dominated by technical noise, resulting in misinterpretation.

Based on our findings and the broader thesis of effective RNA-seq data analysis, we strongly recommend:

• For PCA as an Exploratory Tool: Use between-sample normalization methods like TMM (from edgeR) or the median-of-ratios method (from DESeq2). These methods are specifically designed to correct for composition biases and are the most robust for revealing true biological sample-to-sample relationships in exploratory analyses like PCA [1] [31].
• Avoid PCA on Raw Counts: Never perform PCA on raw counts without normalization. The dominant technical variation will mask biological signals.
• Use TPM for Its Intended Purpose: Reserve TPM for questions about relative transcript abundance within a single sample. It is not the optimal choice for comparing expression levels for the same gene across different samples in a PCA context [1] [27].
• Integrate QC with Visualization: Always couple PCA with other QC metrics. As shown in other studies, incorporating metrics like the Transcript Integrity Number (TIN) score in a separate PCA can help distinguish true biological outliers from low-quality samples, adding a crucial layer of validation to your findings [9].

In summary, for researchers aiming to use PCA to visualize and understand the structure of their RNA-seq data, employing a robust between-sample normalization method such as TMM is a critical best practice that ensures the resulting patterns reflect biology, not technical artifacts.

Utilizing Clustering Analysis to Objectively Evaluate Population Structure Revealed by PCA

In the analysis of RNA-sequencing data, Principal Component Analysis (PCA) serves as a fundamental dimension reduction technique that reveals dominant patterns of variation and sample relationships within high-dimensional gene expression datasets [66]. When properly normalized and executed, PCA can separate samples based on biological factors of interest, such as disease status or treatment response [47]. However, interpreting whether the emerging patterns represent genuine biological structure or technical artifacts remains challenging. This protocol details how clustering analysis can provide an objective, data-driven framework for validating population structures observed in PCA visualizations, with particular emphasis on the critical role of data normalization in generating biologically meaningful results.

The integration of clustering with PCA creates a powerful synergistic approach for RNA-seq data exploration. While PCA creates low-dimensional representations that capture maximal variance, clustering algorithms partition samples into homogeneous groups based on similarity measures [66]. When these independent methodologies converge on similar sample groupings, confidence in the biological validity of the identified population structure increases substantially. This verification is particularly crucial in translational research and drug development, where accurate sample classification can inform biomarker discovery and therapeutic target identification.

Theoretical Foundation

Principal Component Analysis in RNA-seq

Principal Component Analysis transforms high-dimensional gene expression data into a lower-dimensional space while preserving the most significant patterns of variation. Mathematically, PCA identifies new variables (principal components) that are linear combinations of the original genes, with the first component (PC1) capturing the largest possible variance, the second (PC2) capturing the next largest variance while being orthogonal to PC1, and so on [4]. Each principal component is associated with an "explained variance ratio" indicating what percentage of the total variance in the original dataset it captures [4]. The cumulative explained variance ratio represents the total variance captured by a subset of components; for example, if PC1 explains 50% and PC2 explains 30%, the cumulative variance up to PC2 is 80% [4].

In RNA-seq applications, where each sample contains expression values for tens of thousands of genes, PCA enables visualization of sample similarities in two or three dimensions [4]. Samples with similar gene expression profiles across all genes will cluster together in the PCA plot, while biologically distinct samples will separate [66]. This visualization helps researchers identify patterns, detect outliers, and generate hypotheses about underlying biological factors driving expression differences.

Normalization Methods and Their Impact on PCA

Normalization is an essential preprocessing step that adjusts raw count data for technical variations, making expression levels comparable between samples [26]. The main factors considered during normalization include sequencing depth (accounting for different numbers of total reads per sample) and gene length (necessary when comparing expression between different genes) [26]. However, for 3' or 5' droplet-based scRNA-seq methods, gene length may not require adjustment [26].

Different normalization methods operate on distinct statistical assumptions and can substantially impact PCA results and interpretation [67] [68]. Recent research demonstrates that while PCA score plots may appear similar across normalization methods, the biological interpretation of the models can depend heavily on the normalization technique applied [67]. Studies evaluating multiple normalization methods found that TPM and RPKM tend to cluster together, as do probabilistic quotient and conditional quantile normalization, while other methods show varying degrees of separation [68].

Table 1: Common RNA-seq Normalization Methods and Their Characteristics

Normalization Method	Key Characteristics	Impact on PCA
Total-count	Scales counts by total library size	Simple but sensitive to highly expressed genes
TMM	Trimmed Mean of M-values; assumes most genes not DE	Reduces composition bias; widely used
TPM/RPKM	Accounts for gene length and sequencing depth	Suitable for full-length protocols; forms distinct cluster
Relative Log Expression	Robust to differential expression	Preserves magnitude of counts; good for quality control
Upper-quartile	Uses upper quartile as scaling factor	Robust to some extreme expressions
Probabilistic Quotient	Based on quotient of probability distributions	Often clusters with conditional quantile
Full-quantile	Forces identical empirical distributions	Aggressive; may remove biological signal
Conditional Quantile	Models dependence of counts on gene length	Often clusters with probabilistic quotient

Clustering Methods for Validation

Clustering algorithms provide objective, data-driven partitions of samples based on their expression profiles. When these partitions align with patterns observed in PCA, confidence in the biological reality of the groupings increases. Several clustering approaches are applicable to RNA-seq data:

Hierarchical clustering builds a tree-like structure (dendrogram) where leaves represent individual samples and the algorithm successively pairs together objects showing the highest similarity [66]. The resulting dendrogram can be visualized alongside a heatmap showing the entire data matrix, with entries color-coded according to their value [66].

K-means clustering directly partitions samples into a specified number of groups by minimizing within-cluster variance [69]. While it doesn't provide inherent graphical representation like hierarchical clustering, the cluster labels can be used to color samples in PCA plots [66].

Spectral clustering utilizes the spectral properties of similarity matrices to identify clusters, often performing well with non-convex cluster shapes [69]. Advanced hybrid approaches like scMSCF combine multiple clustering techniques with PCA dimensionality reduction to enhance accuracy and stability [69].

Integrated Protocol: PCA and Clustering Analysis

Experimental Workflow

The following workflow diagram illustrates the integrated protocol for utilizing clustering analysis to evaluate PCA-revealed population structure:

Step-by-Step Procedures

Data Preprocessing and Normalization

Step 1: Data Import and Quality Control

• Begin with raw count data from RNA-seq alignment tools (e.g., STAR, HISAT2) or quantification tools (e.g., Kallisto, Salmon)
• Perform quality assessment using tools like FastQC or multiQC to identify potential issues
• Filter out low-quality samples and genes with minimal expression
• For single-cell RNA-seq data, apply additional quality controls to remove damaged cells and doublets [70]

Step 2: Normalization Method Selection and Application

• Select appropriate normalization method based on experimental design and data characteristics (refer to Table 1)
• For bulk RNA-seq differential expression analysis, TMM (edgeR) or geometric normalization (DESeq2) are recommended [47] [8]
• Implement normalization using established tools:
  • DESeq2: dds <- DESeqDataSetFromMatrix(countData = cts, colData = coldata, design = ~ condition); dds <- DESeq(dds); normalized_counts <- counts(dds, normalized=TRUE) [47]
  • edgeR: y <- DGEList(counts); y <- calcNormFactors(y); normalized_counts <- cpm(y, log=TRUE) [8]

Table 2: Normalization Impact on Downstream Clustering Results

Normalization Method	Cluster Separation	Sensitivity to Outliers	Recommended Use Case
TMM	High	Moderate	Differential expression with composition bias
Geometric (DESeq2)	High	Low	Bulk RNA-seq with multiple factors
TPM	Moderate	High	Full-length protocols, cross-sample comparison
RLE	Moderate	Low	Quality assessment, dataset exploration
Upper-quartile	Moderate	Moderate	Data with extreme count values
Probabilistic Quotient	Variable	Low	Metabolomic integration studies

PCA Implementation and Visualization

Step 3: PCA Calculation

• Use the prcomp() function in R for principal component analysis: pca <- prcomp(t(normalized_counts), center=TRUE, scale=FALSE) [8]
• For logged or scaled counts, consider enabling the scale option: pca <- prcomp(t(log_normalized_counts), center=TRUE, scale=TRUE)
• Extract principal component scores and variance explained:
  • pca_scores <- pca$x
  • variance_explained <- (pca$sdev^2) / sum(pca$sdev^2)

Step 4: PCA Visualization

• Create a basic PCA plot using ggplot2:

• Examine multiple PC combinations if biological groups don't separate clearly in PC1 vs PC2
• Create a Scree plot to visualize variance explained by each component [8]

Clustering Analysis for Validation

Step 5: Hierarchical Clustering

• Calculate distance matrix: dist_matrix <- dist(t(normalized_counts), method="euclidean")
• Perform hierarchical clustering: hc <- hclust(dist_matrix, method="ward.D2")
• Plot dendrogram with sample annotations: plot(hc, labels=metadata$condition)
• Create a heatmap with dendrogram:

Step 6: K-means Clustering

• Determine optimal number of clusters (k) using elbow method or silhouette analysis
• Perform K-means clustering on principal components:

• Visualize K-means results on PCA plot by coloring points according to cluster assignment

Step 7: Consensus Evaluation

• Compare cluster assignments with PCA visualization patterns
• Calculate agreement metrics between independent clustering methods
• Identify samples with inconsistent assignments for further investigation
• If using multiple normalization methods, compare clustering stability across approaches

Validation Framework

The relationship between normalization, PCA, and clustering can be visualized through the following validation framework:

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Tools for PCA and Clustering Analysis of RNA-seq Data

Tool/Category	Specific Examples	Function	Application Notes
Normalization Software	DESeq2, edgeR, limma	Count normalization and statistical analysis	DESeq2 recommended for bulk RNA-seq with complex designs [47]
Clustering Algorithms	K-means, Hierarchical, DBSCAN	Sample partitioning based on expression similarity	Hierarchical clustering provides intuitive dendrogram visualization [66]
Dimension Reduction	PCA, t-SNE, UMAP	High-dimensional data visualization	PCA preserves global structure; explains variance [4]
Programming Environment	R/Bioconductor, Python	Data analysis and visualization ecosystem	Bioconductor provides specialized packages for genomics
Visualization Packages	ggplot2, pheatmap, ComplexHeatmap	Publication-quality figure generation	ggplot2 enables customizable PCA plots [47]
Single-cell Specific	Seurat, Scanpy	scRNA-seq preprocessing and analysis	Seurat integrates PCA and clustering for cell type identification [69]

Troubleshooting and Optimization

Common Challenges and Solutions

Weak or No Separation in PCA

• If samples show minimal separation in PCA plots, examine higher PCs (PC3, PC4, etc.) which may capture relevant biological variance [8]
• Re-evaluate normalization method: aggressive normalization may remove biological signal
• Consider batch effect correction using tools like ComBat or removeUnwantedVariation (RUV) if technical artifacts are suspected

Discrepancy Between PCA and Clustering Results

• Inconsistent patterns between PCA visualization and cluster assignments suggest either:
  • Technical artifacts affecting one method more than the other
  • Overfitting in clustering algorithm (try different values of k)
  • Inappropriate distance metric for clustering (experiment with Euclidean, correlation-based, or other distance measures)

Dependence on Normalization Method

• If population structure changes dramatically across normalization methods:
  • Perform sensitivity analysis with multiple normalization approaches
  • Prioritize methods that produce biologically plausible results
  • Validate findings with orthogonal experimental approaches when possible

Advanced Applications

Single-cell RNA-seq Considerations

• For scRNA-seq data, apply additional preprocessing steps including:
  • Cell quality filtering based on mitochondrial percentage and unique gene counts
  • Normalization using SCTransform or deconvolution methods [69]
  • Highly variable gene selection prior to PCA [69]
• Utilize specialized clustering frameworks like scMSCF that integrate multi-dimensional PCA with ensemble clustering [69]

Pathway Enrichment Integration

• Extract genes with highest loadings on separating principal components
• Perform pathway enrichment analysis (KEGG, GO) to biologically interpret separation patterns [68]
• Compare enriched pathways across normalization methods to identify robust biological signals

The integrated application of clustering analysis to evaluate population structure revealed by PCA provides a robust framework for objective interpretation of RNA-seq data. This approach is particularly valuable in the context of normalization method selection, as convergence between independent methodologies strengthens confidence in identified patterns. By implementing the detailed protocols outlined in this document, researchers can advance beyond subjective visual assessment of PCA plots to data-driven validation of sample groupings, ultimately enhancing the reliability of biological conclusions drawn from transcriptomic studies.

The critical importance of normalization method selection cannot be overstated, as different approaches can substantially impact both PCA visualization and clustering results [67] [68]. Researchers should therefore perform sensitivity analyses across multiple normalization methods and prioritize those that produce biologically coherent and technically consistent patterns across both PCA and clustering domains. This rigorous approach to data exploration and validation is especially crucial in translational applications where accurate sample classification directly impacts diagnostic and therapeutic decisions.

Conclusion

Effective normalization is not merely a preprocessing step but the foundation for any robust RNA-seq analysis involving PCA. Selecting the correct method, such as TPM for within-sample comparisons or TMM/DESeq2 for between-sample analyses, is crucial to ensure that the variance captured by the principal components reflects true biological differences rather than technical artifacts. By rigorously validating normalization outcomes and understanding how to troubleshoot common issues like batch effects, researchers can confidently use PCA to explore population structure, identify outliers, and generate reliable hypotheses. As RNA-seq technologies evolve and datasets grow, mastering these normalization principles will remain paramount for extracting meaningful insights in translational research and drug development.

References

• 1. a practical guide to RNA sequencing data analysis [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12599993/]
• 2. Visualization of RNA-Seq results with heatmap2 [https://training.galaxyproject.org/training-material/topics/transcriptomics/tutorials/rna-seq-viz-with-heatmap2/tutorial.html]
• 3. Normalization of gene counts affects principal components ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1874939924000543]
• 4. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) in RNA-Seq Analysis [https://olvtools.com/en/rnaseq/help/principal-component-analysis]
• 5. RNA-seq Pre-processing tutorial [https://sbc.shef.ac.uk/rna-seq-in-galaxy/01-pre-processing.nb.html]
• 6. [Tutorial] Bulk RNA-seq DE analysis [https://informatics.fas.harvard.edu/resources/tutorials/differential-expression-analysis/]
• 7. A Beginner's Guide to Analysis of RNA Sequencing Data [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6096346/]
• 8. PCA in a RNA seq analysis [https://www.biostars.org/p/280615/]
• 9. A Simple Guideline to Assess the Characteristics of RNA- ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6241233/]
• 10. Introduction to RNA-seq sequencing: Preprocessing - StatOmics [https://statomics.github.io/SGA/sequencing_intro.html]
• 11. Compositional data modeling of high-dimensional single ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12539173/]
• 12. Data normalization for addressing the challenges in the ... [https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12864-024-10364-5]
• 13. Benchmarking of dimensionality reduction methods to ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-12021-7]
• 14. GraphPCA: a fast and interpretable dimension reduction ... [https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-024-03429-x]
• 15. Benchmarking of dimensionality reduction methods to ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40890192/]
• 16. Identifying patterns differing between high-dimensional ... [https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1012747]
• 17. Removing unwanted variation from large-scale RNA ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41587-022-01440-w]
• 18. Batch Correction Analysis [https://rnabio.org/module-03-expression/0003/06/02/Batch-Correction/]
• 19. How to Analyze RNAseq Data for Absolute Beginners 21 [https://ngs101.com/how-to-analyze-rnaseq-data-for-absolute-beginners-21-a-comprehensive-guide-to-batch-effects-covariates-adjustment/]
• 20. A survey of best practices for RNA-seq data analysis [https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-016-0881-8]
• 21. Principal component analysis based methods in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3220871/]
• 22. Principled PCA separates signal from noise in omics count data [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?linkname=pubmed_pubmed_citedin&from_uid=39975320]
• 23. FastRNA: An efficient solution for PCA of single-cell RNA ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9674949/]
• 24. A comparison of RNA-Seq data preprocessing pipelines for ... [https://bmcbioinformatics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12859-024-05801-x]
• 25. VCF2PCACluster: a simple, fast and memory-efficient tool for ... [https://bmcbioinformatics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12859-024-05770-1]
• 26. Single-cell RNA-seq: Theory of normalization and PCA [https://hbctraining.github.io/scRNA-seq/lessons/05_normalization_and_PCA.html]
• 27. RNA-Seq Normalization: Methods and Stages [https://bigomics.ch/blog/why-how-normalize-rna-seq-data/]
• 28. Misuse of RPKM or TPM normalization when comparing ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7373998/]
• 29. RPKM, FPKM and TPM, clearly explained [https://www.rna-seqblog.com/rpkm-fpkm-and-tpm-clearly-explained/]
• 30. TPM, FPKM, or Normalized Counts? A Comparative Study of ... [https://translational-medicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12967-021-02936-w]
• 31. A benchmark of RNA-seq data normalization methods for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11502818/]
• 32. Performance Assessment and Selection of Normalization ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6544759/]
• 33. Count normalization with DESeq2 | Introduction to DGE [https://hbctraining.github.io/DGE_workshop/lessons/02_DGE_count_normalization.html]
• 34. Selecting between-sample RNA-Seq normalization ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6171491/]
• 35. Navigating RNA-Seq Data: A Comprehensive Guide... [https://pluto.bio/resources/Learning%20Series/navigating-rna-seq-data-a-guide-to-normalization-methods]
• 36. Best-suited unit of expression to perform between-sample ... [https://www.biostars.org/p/306010/]
• 37. In Papyro Comparison of TMM (edgeR), RLE (DESeq2) ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5025571/]
• 38. RNA-seq analysis in R [https://bioinformatics-core-shared-training.github.io/cruk-summer-school-2019/RNAseq/html/02_Preprocessing_Data.html]
• 39. Seurat part 3 – Data and normalization – NGS PCA Analysis [https://learn.gencore.bio.nyu.edu/single-cell-rnaseq/seurat-part-3-data-normalization/]
• 40. Gene expression units explained: RPM, RPKM, FPKM, TPM ... [https://www.reneshbedre.com/blog/expression_units.html]
• 41. From bench to bytes: a practical guide to RNA sequencing ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/genetics/articles/10.3389/fgene.2025.1697922/full]
• 42. 27.Principal Component Analysis (PCA) & Dimensionality ... [https://medium.com/@kiranvutukuri/27-principal-component-analysis-pca-dimensionality-reduction-b7ed1b724a02]
• 43. PCA For Data Visualization: Simplifying Complex Data [https://aicompetence.org/pca-for-data-visualization/]
• 44. A benchmark of RNA-seq data normalization methods for ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41540-024-00448-z]
• 45. SMIXnorm: Fast and Accurate RNA-Seq Data ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8024626/]
• 46. Single-Cell RNA Sequencing on Formalin-Fixed and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11816443/]
• 47. PCA Visualization - RNA-seq - GitHub Pages [https://alexslemonade.github.io/refinebio-examples/03-rnaseq/dimension-reduction_rnaseq_01_pca.html]
• 48. Comparative analysis of library preparation approaches for ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-12992-7]
• 49. pcaExplorer: an R/Bioconductor package for interacting with ... [https://bmcbioinformatics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12859-019-2879-1]
• 50. Batch correction methods used in single-cell RNA sequencing ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12315870/]
• 51. Analytic Pearson residuals for normalization of single-cell ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8419999/]
• 52. Batch Effect Correction [https://www.10xgenomics.com/analysis-guides/introduction-batch-effect-correction]
• 53. An order-preserving batch-effect correction method based ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12207412/]
• 54. Highly effective batch effect correction method for RNA-seq ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11718288/]
• 55. Robust principal component analysis for accurate outlier ... [https://bmcbioinformatics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12859-020-03608-0]
• 56. Patterns of extreme outlier gene expression suggest an edge ... [https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-025-03709-0]
• 57. Pre-processing RNAseq data before PCA or tSNE: Log- ... [https://www.biostars.org/p/490229/]
• 58. Normalization of RNA-seq data using factor analysis ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4404308/]
• 59. A real-world multi-center RNA-seq benchmarking study ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-50420-y]
• 60. Differential Expression Analysis for Bulk RNA Sequencing [https://bioinformatics.ccr.cancer.gov/docs/bioinformatics-for-beginners-2025/Module2_RNA_Sequencing/Lesson14/]
• 61. PCA for RNA-Seq [https://resources.qiagenbioinformatics.com/manuals/clcgenomicsworkbench/2200/index.php?manual=PCA_RNA_Seq.html]
• 62. Exploring RNA-seq data normalization methods using ... [https://research.wur.nl/en/publications/exploring-rna-seq-data-normalization-methods-using-principal-comp]
• 63. Benchmarking RNA-seq differential expression analysis ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7192453/]
• 64. A robust pipeline for RNA-seq data and a benchmark ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950433325002034]
• 65. 8.3 Gene expression analysis using high-throughput ... [https://compgenomr.github.io/book/gene-expression-analysis-using-high-throughput-sequencing-technologies.html]
• 66. A comparison between PCA and hierarchical clustering | RNA - Seq Blog [https://www.rna-seqblog.com/a-comparison-between-pca-and-hierarchical-clustering/]
• 67. Normalization of gene counts affects principal components- ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39154857/]
• 68. Exploring RNA-seq data normalization methods using ... [https://zenodo.org/records/10528478]
• 69. A robust multi-scale clustering framework for single-cell RNA - seq data... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-03603-6?error=cookies_not_supported&code=a1259143-2056-4b70-855d-8319b9fbbb90]
• 70. Navigating single-cell RNA -sequencing: protocols , tools, databases... [https://genomicsinform.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s44342-025-00044-5]