Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25765860›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2015

A comprehensive evaluation of ensembl, RefSeq, and UCSC annotations in the context of RNA-seq read mapping and gene quantification.

Shanrong Zhao, Baohong Zhang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 77 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
77citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

77 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. In Silico Analysis of Squamous Cell Carcinoma.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2026
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Impact of genome build on RNA-seq interpretation and diagnostics.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

17 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Shanrong ZhaoClinical Genetics and Bioinformatics, BioTherapeutics Clinical R&D, Pfizer Worldwide Research & Development, Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA. Shanrong.Zhao@pfizer.com.
Baohong ZhangClinical Genetics and Bioinformatics, BioTherapeutics Clinical R&D, Pfizer Worldwide Research & Development, Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA. Baohong.Zhang@pfizer.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRNA-Seq has become increasingly popular in transcriptome profiling. One aspect of transcriptome research is to quantify the expression levels of genomic elements, such as genes, their transcripts and exons. Acquiring a transcriptome expression profile requires genomic elements to be defined in the context of the genome. Multiple human genome annotation databases exist, including RefGene (RefSeq Gene), Ensembl, and the UCSC annotation database. The impact of the choice of an annotation on estimating gene expression remains insufficiently investigated.

resultsIn this paper, we systematically characterized the impact of genome annotation choice on read mapping and transcriptome quantification by analyzing a RNA-Seq dataset generated by the Human Body Map 2.0 Project. The impact of a gene model on mapping of non-junction reads is different from junction reads. For the RNA-Seq dataset with a read length of 75 bp, on average, 95% of non-junction reads were mapped to exactly the same genomic location regardless of which gene models was used. By contrast, this percentage dropped to 53% for junction reads. In addition, about 30% of junction reads failed to align without the assistance of a gene model, while 10-15% mapped alternatively. There are 21,958 common genes among RefGene, Ensembl, and UCSC annotations. When we compared the gene quantification results in RefGene and Ensembl annotations, 20% of genes are not expressed, and thus have a zero count in both annotations. Surprisingly, identical gene quantification results were obtained for only 16.3% (about one sixth) of genes. Approximately 28.1% of genes' expression levels differed by 5% or higher, and of those, the relative expression levels for 9.3% of genes (equivalent to 2038) differed by 50% or greater. The case studies revealed that the gene definition differences in gene models frequently result in inconsistency in gene quantification.

conclusionsWe demonstrated that the choice of a gene model has a dramatic effect on both gene quantification and differential analysis. Our research will help RNA-Seq data analysts to make an informed choice of gene model in practical RNA-Seq data analysis.

Indexed as

Databases, GeneticBase SequenceExonsGenome, HumanGenomicsHumansMolecular Sequence AnnotationRNA, MessengerSequence Analysis, RNATranscriptomeRNA, Messenger

Identifiers

PMID25765860
PMCPMC4339237

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.