ArticleFrontiers in genetics2018
Evaluation of Bioinformatics Approaches for Next-Generation Sequencing Analysis of microRNAs with a Toxicogenomics Study Design.
Article in Frontiers in genetics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Standardization of preclinical methodologies for discovery and validation of circulating microRNA biomarkers for post-traumatic epileptogenesis - Lessons learned from the EpiBioS4Rx Project 1.Epilepsy research · 2025Article
- Hepatitis B Virus and microRNAs: A Bioinformatics Approach.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- miRNA Studies in Glaucoma: A Comprehensive Review of Current Knowledge and Future Perspectives.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Assessment of microRNA profiles in small extracellular vesicles isolated from bovine colostrum with different immunoglobulin G concentrations.JDS communications · 2022Article
- Regulation of angiogenesis by microRNAs in cancer.Molecular medicine reports · 2021Review
- Evaluation and application of tools for the identification of known microRNAs in plants.Applications in plant sciences · 2021Review
- Integration of miRNAs, Degradome, and Transcriptome Omics Uncovers a Complex Regulatory Network and Provides Insights Into Lipid and Fatty Acid Synthesis During Sesame Seed Development.Frontiers in plant science · 2021Article
- Review
- RATEmiRs: the rat atlas of tissue-specific and enriched miRNAs for discerning baseline expression exclusivity of candidate biomarkers.RNA biology · 2020Article
- Comparison of RNA-Seq and Microarray Gene Expression Platforms for the Toxicogenomic Evaluation of Liver From Short-Term Rat Toxicity Studies.Frontiers in genetics · 2018Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are key post-transcriptional regulators that affect protein translation by targeting mRNAs. Their role in disease etiology and toxicity are well recognized. Given the rapid advancement of next-generation sequencing techniques, miRNA profiling has been increasingly conducted with RNA-seq, namely miRNA-seq. Analysis of miRNA-seq data requires several steps: (1) mapping the reads to miRBase, (2) considering mismatches during the hairpin alignment (windowing), and (3) counting the reads (quantification). The choice made in each step with respect to the parameter settings could affect miRNA quantification, differentially expressed miRNAs (DEMs) detection and novel miRNA identification. Furthermore, these parameters do not act in isolation and their joint effects impact miRNA-seq results and interpretation. In toxicogenomics, the variation associated with parameter setting should not overpower the treatment effect (such as the dose/time-dependent effect). In this study, four commonly used miRNA-seq analysis tools (i.e., miRDeep2, miRExpress, miRNAkey, sRNAbench) were comparatively evaluated with a standard toxicogenomics study design. We tested 30 different parameter settings on miRNA-seq data generated from thioacetamide-treated rat liver samples for three dose levels across four time points, followed by four normalization options. Because both miRExpress and miRNAkey yielded larger variation than that of the treatment effects across multiple parameter settings, our analyses mainly focused on the side-by-side comparison between miRDeep2 and sRNAbench. While the number of miRNAs detected by miRDeep2 was almost the subset of those detected by sRNAbench, the number of DEMs identified by both tools was comparable under the same parameter settings and normalization method. Change in the number of nucleotides out of the mature sequence in the hairpin alignment (window option) yielded the largest variation for miRNA quantification and DEMs detection. However, such a variation is relatively small compared to the treatment effect when the study focused on DEMs that are more critical to interpret the toxicological effect. While the normalization methods introduced a large variation in DEMs, toxic behavior of thioacetamide showed consistency in the trend of time-dose responses. Overall, miRDeep2 was found to be preferable over other choices when the window option allowed up to three nucleotides from both ends.
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.