2023
DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btad039
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

DiffCircaPipeline: a framework for multifaceted characterization of differential rhythmicity

Abstract: Summary Circadian oscillations of gene expression regulates daily physiological processes, and their disruption is linked to many diseases. Circadian rhythms can be disrupted in a variety of ways, including differential phase, amplitude, and rhythm fitness. Although many differential circadian biomarker detection methods have been proposed, a workflow for systematic detection of multifaceted differential circadian characteristics with accurate false positive control is not currently available… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2024
2024
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3
1

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…1). We analyzed differential gene rhythmicity using DiffCircaPipeline (DCP) (Xue et al, 2023) and differential gene expression using DESeq2 (Love et al, 2014) .…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…1). We analyzed differential gene rhythmicity using DiffCircaPipeline (DCP) (Xue et al, 2023) and differential gene expression using DESeq2 (Love et al, 2014) .…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To identify candidate genes for SCN photoperiod-induced plasticity, we examined changes in the circadian transcriptome of the SCN from C3Hf+/+ mice raised in Long (LD 16:8) vs. Short (LD 8:16) photoperiods. We analyzed differential gene rhythmicity using DiffCircaPipeline (DCP) [43] and differential gene expression using DESeq2 [41].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Current methods primarily use statistical testing to detect differential rhythmicity and some have integrated their use with standard genomic analysis pipelines (Weger et al, 2021). These methods can be summarized as either performing model selection (Pelikan et al, 2022, Weger et al, 2021) or hypothesis testing (Ding et al, 2021, Parsons et al, 2020, Singer and Hughey, 2019, Thaben and Westermark, 2016, Xue et al, 2023). Broadly, model selection methods aim to identify sets of functions that best describe changes between two conditions, while hypothesis testing evaluates the presence or absence of differential rhythmicity.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%