Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28610557›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2017

Integration of quantitated expression estimates from polyA-selected and rRNA-depleted RNA-seq libraries.

Stephen J Bush, Mary E B McCulloch, Kim M Summers, David A Hume, Emily L Clark

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
–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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Data sharing for clinical utility.Cold Spring Harbor molecular case studies · 2019
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

5 authors.

Stephen J BushThe Roslin Institute and Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush, Midlothian, EH25 9RG, UK. stephen.bush@roslin.ed.ac.uk.
Mary E B McCullochThe Roslin Institute and Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush, Midlothian, EH25 9RG, UK.
Kim M SummersThe Roslin Institute and Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush, Midlothian, EH25 9RG, UK.
David A HumeThe Roslin Institute and Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush, Midlothian, EH25 9RG, UK. david.hume@roslin.ed.ac.uk.
Emily L ClarkThe Roslin Institute and Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush, Midlothian, EH25 9RG, UK.

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/L001209/1Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BBS/E/D/20211550Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BBS/E/D/20211551Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BBS/E/D/20211552Medical Research Council MR/K001744/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe availability of fast alignment-free algorithms has greatly reduced the computational burden of RNA-seq processing, especially for relatively poorly assembled genomes. Using these approaches, previous RNA-seq datasets could potentially be processed and integrated with newly sequenced libraries. Confounding factors in such integration include sequencing depth and methods of RNA extraction and selection. Different selection methods (typically, either polyA-selection or rRNA-depletion) omit different RNAs, resulting in different fractions of the transcriptome being sequenced. In particular, rRNA-depleted libraries sample a broader fraction of the transcriptome than polyA-selected libraries. This study aimed to develop a systematic means of accounting for library type that allows data from these two methods to be compared.

resultsThe method was developed by comparing two RNA-seq datasets from ovine macrophages, identical except for RNA selection method. Gene-level expression estimates were obtained using a two-part process centred on the high-speed transcript quantification tool Kallisto. Firstly, a set of reference transcripts was defined that constitute a standardised RNA space, with expression from both datasets quantified against it. Secondly, a simple ratio-based correction was applied to the rRNA-depleted estimates. The outcome is an almost perfect correlation between gene expression estimates, independent of library type and across the full range of levels of expression.

conclusionA combination of reference transcriptome filtering and a ratio-based correction can create equivalent expression profiles from both polyA-selected and rRNA-depleted libraries. This approach will allow meta-analysis and integration of existing RNA-seq data into transcriptional atlas projects.

Indexed as

Sequence Analysis, RNATranscriptomeAnimalsFemaleGene Expression ProfilingGene LibraryLipopolysaccharidesMacrophagesMalePoly ARNARNA, RibosomalSheepLipopolysaccharidesPoly ARNARNA, RibosomalExpression atlasGene expressionKallistopolyA-selectionRNA-seqrRNA-depletion

Identifiers

PMID28610557
PMCPMC5470212

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.