Hiring in life sciences? Share your open positions with our professional community. Read more Close

Advertisement

Interspecies Differential Gene Expression Analysis with Regularized Phylogenetic Linear Models

Created on 04 Jul 2026

Authors

Gallopin, M., Daunesse, M., Lespinet, O., Liehrmann, A., Bastide, P.

Abstract

Comparative transcriptomic datasets are increasingly used to investigate the molecular basis of phenotypic diversification across species. However, finding genes that are differentially expressed (DE) between lineages remains challenging, for two main reasons. First, the random evolutionary drift can blur the signal left by lineage-specific shifts in mean expression, and induces phylogenetic correlations that, if ignored, can widely inflate the False Discovery Rate (FDR), i.e., the amount of spuriously detected genes. Second, DE analysis from RNA-Seq data involves multiple testing on many genes for a small number of individual measurements with high noise, and requires dedicated statistical tools. Traditional DE tools, such as limma, and classical Phylogenetic Comparative Methods (PCMs), such as the Expression Variance and Evolution (EVE) model, are both designed to tackle one of these two challenges alone, but both fail in the context of inter-species RNA-Seq data. In this work, we present phyloDE, a new tool for inter-species DE, that aims at taking the best from both approaches. On simulations based on a recently published four-species rodent dataset, we show that, contrary to other methods, phyloDE correctly controls the FDR in all settings, while keeping a reasonable power. When reanalyzing the empirical dataset, phyloDE discovers more DE genes that exhibit consistent changes in their cis-regulatory landscape compared to EVE in all the experimental settings. The method is implemented in R, with an interface inheriting from limma.

Preprint server: bioRxiv
The authors list and abstract were imported from bioRxiv on 04 Jul 2026.

Advertisement

Stats

  • Community rating n/a 0 votes
  • Your rating

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this preprint? Sign in in to submit your rating.

  • Recommendations n/a n/a positive of 0 vote(s)
  • Views 5
  • Comments 0

Recommended by

  • No recommendations yet.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.

Advertisement