Abstract
Empirical Bayes is a choice framework for differential expression (DE) analysis for multi-group RNA-seq count data. Its characteristic ability to compute posterior probabilities for predefined expression patterns allows users to assign the pattern with the highest value to the gene under consideration. However, current Bayesian methods such as baySeq and EBSeq can be improved, especially with respect to normalization. Two R packages (baySeq and EBSeq) with their default normalization settings and with other normalization methods (MRN and TCC) were compared using three-group simulation data and real count data. Our findings were as follows: (1) the Bayesian methods coupled with TCC normalization performed comparably or better than those with the default normalization settings under various simulation scenarios, (2) default DE pipelines provided in TCC that implements a generalized linear model framework was still superior to the Bayesian methods with TCC normalization when overall degree of DE was evaluated, and (3) baySeq with TCC was robust against different choices of possible expression patterns. In practice, we recommend using the default DE pipeline provided in TCC for obtaining overall gene ranking and then using the baySeq with TCC normalization for assigning the most plausible expression patterns to individual genes.