ArticlePloS one2013
Mining RNA-seq data for infections and contaminations.
Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- MetaMap: an atlas of metatranscriptomic reads in human disease-related RNA-seq data.GigaScience · 2018Article
- Article
- Functional variants of human papillomavirus type 16 demonstrate host genome integration and transcriptional alterations corresponding to their unique cancer epidemiology.BMC genomics · 2016Article
- Widespread disruption of host transcription termination in HSV-1 infection.Nature communications · 2015Article
- ContextMap 2: fast and accurate context-based RNA-seq mapping.BMC bioinformatics · 2015Article
- Article
- Association between changes in reproductive activity and D-glucose metabolism in the tephritid fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel).Scientific reports · 2014Article
- Reagent and laboratory contamination can critically impact sequence-based microbiome analyses.BMC biology · 2014Article
- Thermophilic microbial cellulose decomposition and methanogenesis pathways recharacterized by metatranscriptomic and metagenomic analysis.Scientific reports · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) provides novel opportunities for transcriptomic studies at nucleotide resolution, including transcriptomics of viruses or microbes infecting a cell. However, standard approaches for mapping the resulting sequencing reads generally ignore alternative sources of expression other than the host cell and are little equipped to address the problems arising from redundancies and gaps among sequenced microbe and virus genomes. We show that screening of sequencing reads for contaminations and infections can be performed easily using ContextMap, our recently developed mapping software. Based on mapping-derived statistics, mapping confidence, similarities and misidentifications (e.g. due to missing genome sequences) of species/strains can be assessed. Performance of our approach is evaluated on three real-life sequencing data sets and compared to state-of-the-art metagenomics tools. In particular, ContextMap vastly outperformed GASiC and GRAMMy in terms of runtime. In contrast to MEGAN4, it was capable of providing individual read mappings to species and resolving non-unique mappings, thus allowing the identification of misalignments caused by sequence similarities between genomes and missing genome sequences. Our study illustrates the importance and potentials of routinely mining RNA-seq experiments for infections or contaminations by microbes and viruses. By using ContextMap, gene expression of infecting agents can be analyzed and novel insights in infection processes and tumorigenesis can be obtained.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.