ArticleBMC bioinformatics2014
Computational approaches for isoform detection and estimation: good and bad news.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comprehensive assessment of mRNA isoform detection methods for long-read sequencing data.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Alternative splicing diversifies the transcriptome and proteome of the rice blast fungus during host infection.RNA biology · 2022Article
- Comparative evaluation of full-length isoform quantification from RNA-Seq.BMC bioinformatics · 2021Review
- Challenges in detecting and quantifying intron retention from next generation sequencing data.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2020Review
- Temporal dynamics in meta longitudinal RNA-Seq data.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Event Analysis: Using Transcript Events To Improve Estimates of Abundance in RNA-seq Data.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2018Article
- Bayesian nonparametric discovery of isoforms and individual specific quantification.Nature communications · 2018Article
- Assisted transcriptome reconstruction and splicing orthology.BMC genomics · 2016Article
- Benchmarking of the Oxford Nanopore MinION sequencing for quantitative and qualitative assessment of cDNA populations.Scientific reports · 2016Article
- Pervasive isoform-specific translational regulation via alternative transcription start sites in mammals.Molecular systems biology · 2016Article
- QuickRNASeq lifts large-scale RNA-seq data analyses to the next level of automation and interactive visualization.BMC genomics · 2016Article
- Article
- Comparative assessment of methods for the computational inference of transcript isoform abundance from RNA-seq data.Genome biology · 2015Article
- Article
- Understanding gene regulatory mechanisms by integrating ChIP-seq and RNA-seq data: statistical solutions to biological problems.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe main goal of the whole transcriptome analysis is to correctly identify all expressed transcripts within a specific cell/tissue--at a particular stage and condition--to determine their structures and to measure their abundances. RNA-seq data promise to allow identification and quantification of transcriptome at unprecedented level of resolution, accuracy and low cost. Several computational methods have been proposed to achieve such purposes. However, it is still not clear which promises are already met and which challenges are still open and require further methodological developments.
resultsWe carried out a simulation study to assess the performance of 5 widely used tools, such as: CEM, Cufflinks, iReckon, RSEM, and SLIDE. All of them have been used with default parameters. In particular, we considered the effect of the following three different scenarios: the availability of complete annotation, incomplete annotation, and no annotation at all. Moreover, comparisons were carried out using the methods in three different modes of action. In the first mode, the methods were forced to only deal with those isoforms that are present in the annotation; in the second mode, they were allowed to detect novel isoforms using the annotation as guide; in the third mode, they were operating in fully data driven way (although with the support of the alignment on the reference genome). In the latter modality, precision and recall are quite poor. On the contrary, results are better with the support of the annotation, even though it is not complete. Finally, abundance estimation error often shows a very skewed distribution. The performance strongly depends on the true real abundance of the isoforms. Lowly (and sometimes also moderately) expressed isoforms are poorly detected and estimated. In particular, lowly expressed isoforms are identified mainly if they are provided in the original annotation as potential isoforms.
conclusionsBoth detection and quantification of all isoforms from RNA-seq data are still hard problems and they are affected by many factors. Overall, the performance significantly changes since it depends on the modes of action and on the type of available annotation. Results obtained using complete or partial annotation are able to detect most of the expressed isoforms, even though the number of false positives is often high. Fully data driven approaches require more attention, at least for complex eucaryotic genomes. Improvements are desirable especially for isoform quantification and for isoform detection with low abundance.
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.