Answers.Body: <p>Generally you should just leave them as is. One does remove/mark duplicates in DNA seq. </p>
  
  <p>For further read check this <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/srep25533" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Nature paper </a></p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-08-14T15:33:54.133Z
Answers.Text: Your answer could be improved by hinting on why, according to the paper you cite, removing "PCR duplicates" shouldn't be done in RNASeq. E.g., by citing the one crucial sentence of the abstract: "We find that a large fraction of computationally identified read duplicates are not PCR duplicates and can be explained by sampling and fragmentation bias."
Answers.UserDisplayName: BaCh
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-08-14T16:28:27.160Z
Answers.Text: Sure..I could have excuse me for short answer.
Answers.UserDisplayName: sbradbio
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-08-11T21:08:06.510Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2017-08-11T21:08:06.510Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: sbradbio
Answers.Body: <p>Some of the researchers in my institute have researched on this and use UMIs (Unique Molecular Identifiers) to eliminate PCR duplicates. They have been able to increase the reproducibility of the <a href="https://www.basepairtech.com/analysis/rna-seq/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">rna seq analysis</a> they had been working on. The UMIs capture some lengths of diverse nucleotides from the rna-sequence. I cannot validate how much UMIs can help in deduplication, as even Nature journal says that UMIs specifically work on the 3’ end. But it has been observed that eliminating duplicates doesn’t improve the accuracy of quantification and it could introduce a bias in the data. So do not eliminate the duplicates, it's just a waste of time.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-05-29T13:35:43.500Z
Answers.Text: Hello Shirin, I think it's important to provide a reference for the following statement in your answer: "But it has been observed that eliminating duplicates doesn’t improve the accuracy of quantification and it could introduce a bias in the data."
Answers.UserDisplayName: Kamil S Jaron
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-05-29T03:56:35.337Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-05-29T14:28:18.280Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2019-05-29T14:28:18.280Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Shirin Mohanty
Answers.Body: <p>For normal RNA-seq PCR duplicates are normally kept in, but the duplication rate can be used as a quality control: The higher the duplication rate, the lower the quality. For expression analysis, it is probably best to discard high duplication rate samples, rather than deduplicate them. </p>
  
  <p>In general, the smaller the amount of RNA input into the library prepartion the worst the duplication. Many protocols for very low input quantities (such as single cell) include random barcodes called UMIs (Unique Molecular Identifiers). These allow PCR duplicates to be distinguished from genuinely independent molecules that just happen to have the sample mapping position. </p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-08-21T08:56:23.467Z
Answers.Text: Since the OP does not mention which RNA classes the analysis, let me add that UMIs are also extremely important for sRNA, in particular piRNAs, which quite often map to the exact same locations in the genome and have the same sequence. As afar I know current methods to mark duplicates in mapped reads would result in extreme under-reporting of these RNAs.
Answers.UserDisplayName: fridaymeetssunday
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-08-14T10:33:13.743Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2017-08-14T10:33:13.743Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Ian Sudbery
Body: <p>After reading some of the forum posts in Biostar and SeqAnswers I find it very confusing whether to filter out the duplicate reads from aligned files or not. As far I understand it's very difficult to distinguish between highly expressed genes and duplicate reads and we may lose important information during the filtration process.</p>
  
  <p>So, is it really necessary to remove the duplicates in differential expression analysis using RNA-seq data?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2017-08-14T08:04:56.010Z
Comments.Text: It all depends on how severe the problem is. In general you should only remove them if it is a very high percentage.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Kristoffer Vitting-Seerup
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2017-08-16T17:25:13.630Z
Comments.Text: Any particular threshold like more than 35%?
Comments.UserDisplayName: arup
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2017-08-17T08:42:40.133Z
Comments.Text: Unfortunatly not. The problem is by removing them you might remove real duplicated data thereby under powering your analysis - but by not removing them you might count PCR artefacts thereby increasing false positive. So either option have a potential bias.
  
  I would probably try doing your analysis both with and without removal and then manually inspect some of the results only found by one approach to se which you find more trustworthy. What you should pay special attention to are whether the coverage is more uniform or seem to be affected by loads of reads from single positions.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Kristoffer Vitting-Seerup
Tags: <rna-seq><differential-expression><quality-control>
Title: Removing PCR duplicates in RNA-seq Analysis
ThreadText: # Removing PCR duplicates in RNA-seq Analysis
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2017-08-11)
  
  After reading some of the forum posts in Biostar and SeqAnswers I find it very confusing whether to filter out the duplicate reads from aligned files or not. As far I understand it's very difficult to distinguish between highly expressed genes and duplicate reads and we may lose important information during the filtration process.
  
  So, is it really necessary to remove the duplicates in differential expression analysis using RNA-seq data?
  
  **Tags:** rna-seq, differential-expression, quality-control
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: It all depends on how severe the problem is. In general you should only remove them if it is a very high percentage.  
  > **username_0**: Any particular threshold like more than 35%?  
  > **username_1**: Unfortunatly not. The problem is by removing them you might remove real duplicated data thereby under powering your analysis - but by not removing them you might count PCR artefacts thereby increasing false positive. So either option have a potential bias.  I would probably try doing your analysis both with and without removal and then manually inspect some of the results only found by one approach to se which you find more trustworthy. What you should pay special attention to are whether the coverage is more uniform or seem to be affected by loads of reads from single positions.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 3 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_6 on 2017-08-14. Score: 10 | Accepted answer
  
  For normal RNA-seq PCR duplicates are normally kept in, but the duplication rate can be used as a quality control: The higher the duplication rate, the lower the quality. For expression analysis, it is probably best to discard high duplication rate samples, rather than deduplicate them.
  
  In general, the smaller the amount of RNA input into the library prepartion the worst the duplication. Many protocols for very low input quantities (such as single cell) include random barcodes called UMIs (Unique Molecular Identifiers). These allow PCR duplicates to be distinguished from genuinely independent molecules that just happen to have the sample mapping position.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_7**: Since the OP does not mention which RNA classes the analysis, let me add that UMIs are also extremely important for sRNA, in particular piRNAs, which quite often map to the exact same locations in the genome and have the same sequence. As afar I know current methods to mark duplicates in mapped reads would result in extreme under-reporting of these RNAs.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2017-08-11. Score: 3
  
  Generally you should just leave them as is. One does remove/mark duplicates in DNA seq.
  
  For further read check this [Nature paper](https://www.nature.com/articles/srep25533)
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_3**: Your answer could be improved by hinting on why, according to the paper you cite, removing "PCR duplicates" shouldn't be done in RNASeq. E.g., by citing the one crucial sentence of the abstract: "We find that a large fraction of computationally identified read duplicates are not PCR duplicates and can be explained by sampling and fragmentation bias."  
  > **username_2**: Sure..I could have excuse me for short answer.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_4 on 2019-05-29. Score: 0
  
  Some of the researchers in my institute have researched on this and use UMIs (Unique Molecular Identifiers) to eliminate PCR duplicates. They have been able to increase the reproducibility of the [rna seq analysis](https://www.basepairtech.com/analysis/rna-seq/) they had been working on. The UMIs capture some lengths of diverse nucleotides from the rna-sequence. I cannot validate how much UMIs can help in deduplication, as even Nature journal says that UMIs specifically work on the 3’ end. But it has been observed that eliminating duplicates doesn’t improve the accuracy of quantification and it could introduce a bias in the data. So do not eliminate the duplicates, it's just a waste of time.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_5**: Hello username_4, I think it's important to provide a reference for the following statement in your answer: "But it has been observed that eliminating duplicates doesn’t improve the accuracy of quantification and it could introduce a bias in the data."  
  
  ---
  
  