Appropriate RPKM cutoff
1
0
Entering edit mode
18 months ago
Lilla • 0

Hey,

I'm using multiple previously published RNA-Seq studies as validation and to search for similar "signatures" as in our data. For these other studies I have their final read counts, and statistically significant filtered data that includes RPKM, FPKM, or other normalized read values as per their publications.

My question is that I used a cut-off of RPKM > 1 and FPKM > 1 to say whether or not a gene is expressed in the respective study. A reviewer has now responded that this is not informative and the cut-off is too low. In at least two of the studies they used this same cutoff to say whether or not a gene is expressed. I'm wondering what is a more appropriate cut-off to claim whether or not a gene is expressed? Should it be then higher RPKM cutoff and say >= 10 reads per gene (???).

My supervisors are of no help in this and I don't have help in my lab regarding this. :(

RNA-Seq Sequencing • 528 views
ADD COMMENT
0
Entering edit mode
18 months ago
dsull ★ 6.9k

There is no good "cutoff" for what is "expressed" (and even the word "expressed" is kind of vague -- if a read mapping perfectly+unambiguously to a gene is "present" in your reads, do you use its "presence" to indicate meaningful biological expression?).

But you can cite copy number results from literature, e.g. "a transcript of 1 RPKM corresponds to approximately one transcript per cell" in one particular case - nature.com/articles/nmeth.1226

^Old paper (actually it's the paper that "invented" RNA-seq) -- and mostly outdated with respect to sequencing advances -- but it might be what you need to cite to convince reviewers that, although there's no good cutoff for "expression", people have been using 1 RPKM = 1 transcript copy number per cell in certain cases.

ADD COMMENT

Login before adding your answer.

Traffic: 2164 users visited in the last hour
Help About
FAQ
Access RSS
API
Stats

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.

Powered by the version 2.3.6