IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/natcom/v16y2025i1d10.1038_s41467-025-65022-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Optimized murine sample sizes for RNA sequencing studies revealed from large scale comparative analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Gabor Halasz

    (Molecular Profiling & Data Science, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals)

  • Jennifer Schmahl

    (Aging and Age-Related Disorders, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals)

  • Nicole Negron

    (Molecular Profiling & Data Science, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals)

  • Min Ni

    (Molecular Profiling & Data Science, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals)

  • Wei Keat Lim

    (Molecular Profiling & Data Science, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals)

  • Gurinder S. Atwal

    (Molecular Profiling & Data Science, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals)

  • Yu Bai

    (Molecular Profiling & Data Science, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals)

  • David J. Glass

    (Aging and Age-Related Disorders, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals)

Abstract

Determining the appropriate sample size (N) for bulk RNA sequencing experiments is critical for obtaining reliable results. We show in two N = 30 profiling studies, comparing wild-type mice and mice in which one copy of a gene has been deleted, the N required to minimize false positives and maximize true discoveries found in the N = 30 experiment. Results from experiments with N = 4 or less are shown to be highly misleading, given the high false positive rate and the lack of discovery of genes later found with higher N. For a cut-off of 2-fold expression differences, we find an N of 6-7 mice is required to consistently decrease the false positive rate to below 50%, and the detection sensitivity to above 50%. More is always better for both metrics – and an N of 8-12 is significantly better in recapitulating the full experiment.A common way to reduce the false discovery rate in underpowered experiments is to raise the fold cutoff. We show that this strategy is no substitute for increasing the N of the experiment: it results in consistently inflated effect sizes and causes a substantial drop in sensitivity of detection. These data should be helpful to scientists in choosing their Ns.

Suggested Citation

  • Gabor Halasz & Jennifer Schmahl & Nicole Negron & Min Ni & Wei Keat Lim & Gurinder S. Atwal & Yu Bai & David J. Glass, 2025. "Optimized murine sample sizes for RNA sequencing studies revealed from large scale comparative analysis," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 16(1), pages 1-9, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:nat:natcom:v:16:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1038_s41467-025-65022-5
    DOI: 10.1038/s41467-025-65022-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-65022-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1038/s41467-025-65022-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:nas:journl:v:115:y:2018:p:2584-2589 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Francis S. Collins & Lawrence A. Tabak, 2014. "Policy: NIH plans to enhance reproducibility," Nature, Nature, vol. 505(7485), pages 612-613, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Aaron C Ericsson & J Wade Davis & William Spollen & Nathan Bivens & Scott Givan & Catherine E Hagan & Mark McIntosh & Craig L Franklin, 2015. "Effects of Vendor and Genetic Background on the Composition of the Fecal Microbiota of Inbred Mice," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(2), pages 1-19, February.
    2. repec:plo:pone00:0215221 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Bart Penders & J. Britt Holbrook & Sarah de Rijcke, 2019. "Rinse and Repeat: Understanding the Value of Replication across Different Ways of Knowing," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-15, July.
    4. repec:plo:pmed00:1001772 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Marlo M. Vernon & Frances M. Yang, 2023. "Use of Latent Profile Analysis to Model the Translation of University Research into Health Practice and Policy: Exploration of Proposed Metrics," Research in Higher Education, Springer;Association for Institutional Research, vol. 64(7), pages 1058-1070, November.
    6. Willie A Bidot & Aaron C Ericsson & Craig L Franklin, 2018. "Effects of water decontamination methods and bedding material on the gut microbiota," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-16, October.
    7. Larry V. Hedges & Jacob M. Schauer, 2019. "More Than One Replication Study Is Needed for Unambiguous Tests of Replication," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 44(5), pages 543-570, October.
    8. Nathan A Hotaling & Jun Jeon & Mary Beth Wade & Derek Luong & Xavier-Lewis Palmer & Kapil Bharti & Carl G Simon Jr, 2016. "Training to Improve Precision and Accuracy in the Measurement of Fiber Morphology," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-14, December.
    9. Stuart G Nicholls & Pauline Quach & Erik von Elm & Astrid Guttmann & David Moher & Irene Petersen & Henrik T Sørensen & Liam Smeeth & Sinéad M Langan & Eric I Benchimol, 2015. "The REporting of Studies Conducted Using Observational Routinely-Collected Health Data (RECORD) Statement: Methods for Arriving at Consensus and Developing Reporting Guidelines," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(5), pages 1-18, May.
    10. Tracey L Weissgerber & Vesna D Garovic & Marko Savic & Stacey J Winham & Natasa M Milic, 2016. "From Static to Interactive: Transforming Data Visualization to Improve Transparency," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(6), pages 1-8, June.
    11. Tracey L Weissgerber & Vesna D Garovic & Jelena S Milin-Lazovic & Stacey J Winham & Zoran Obradovic & Jerome P Trzeciakowski & Natasa M Milic, 2016. "Reinventing Biostatistics Education for Basic Scientists," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(4), pages 1-12, April.
    12. Larry V. Hedges & Jacob M. Schauer, 2021. "The design of replication studies," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 184(3), pages 868-886, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nat:natcom:v:16:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1038_s41467-025-65022-5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.